JUICE: Gansler & Simmons Mail, AG Polls, Attack Ads for Gov, Miller Aide for Delegate, Hucker & Barclay for MoCo Council 5

Below Maryland Juice provides a round-up of news of interest to politicos:

JUICE #1: DEL. LUIZ SIMMONS DIRECT MAIL INCLUDES DOUG GANSLER // PLUS: TEAMSTERS ENDORSE SIMMONS FOR D17 SENATE - Maryland Juice caught the following mail piece from Del. Luiz Simmons on Twitter, which includes a testimonial from Attorney General Doug Gansler:

UPDATE: A source close to Simmons clarifies that this was a legislative mailing paid for with personal funds, but the piece carries an authority line to stay in compliance with Maryland law:

Lastly, we received the following press release from Simmons today, noting the endorsement of the Teamsters:

PRESS RELEASE

Del. Luiz Simmons Endorsed by Teamsters Joint Council #55 for State Senate

Rockville, MD – Following the endorsement of Teamsters Local 730 the Teamsters Joint Council #55 have endorsed Del. Luiz Simmons for State Senate in District 17.

Ritchie Brooks, President of Teamsters Local 730 released the following statement: "Luiz Simmons is our choice for State Senate in D17. The hard working men and women of the Maryland Teamsters are proud to support his candidacy and we have beeN proud to support him in the House of Delegates. Delegate Simmons shares our values, and understands the important work we do in his community and all across Maryland. We know we can count on Luiz Simmons to be a voice for working families in the Senate.”

JUICE #2: POLLING RESULTS IN THE ATTORNEY GENERAL RACE // PLUS: MOCO FIREFIGHTERS UNION ENDORSES BRIAN FROSH - Maryland Juice previously wrote about a Baltimore Sun poll on the Attorney General race, which showed the following status of the race:

• Undecided - 69%
• Jon Cardin - 18%
• Brian Frosh - 6%
• Aisha Braveboy - 4%
• Bill Frick - 3%

But The Washington Post also polled the Attorney General race and came up with a different set of results from voters who lean Democratic:

• No Opinion - 40%
• Jon Cardin - 22%
• Aisha Braveboy - 12%
• Brian Frosh - 5%
• Bill Frick - 4%

2-SECOND ANALYSIS: For a race like this, Maryland Juice urges a healthy dose of skepticism that early poll results are yet meaningful. I call this the Joe Lieberman effect; if you'll recall, Lieberman briefly weighed a Presidential bid after serving as a Vice Presidential candidate to Al Gore, and for a time he was leading in the polls. This is almost certainly owing to higher name id, but as we know, these things start to change once unknown candidates start spending money on media. In the Attorney General race, we have not yet gotten to that point in the campaign. Meanwhile, Maryland Juice received the following press release from the MoCo firefighters union, announcing their endorsement of Brian Frosh (excerpt below):

PRESS RELEASE

Montgomery County Career Fire Fighters Association (IAFF) Local 1664

Endorse Democratic Attorney General Candidate Brian Frosh 

Union President Jeff Buddle hails Frosh’s experience and leadership

Bethesda, MD- Today, Brian Frosh, Democratic candidate for Maryland Attorney General, received the endorsement of the Montgomery County Career Fire Fighters Association (IAFF) Local 1664, representing approximately 1200 career fire fighters in Montgomery County.

“Brian Frosh has a record on public safety that stands above the rest. We are confident that he will continue to make the safety and security of Maryland communities a top priority as our next Attorney General,” said Jeffrey Buddle, Union President, IAFF Local 1664. "He is a proven leader and will bring the right combination of experience and leadership to the Attorney General’s office. We wholeheartedly support Brian Frosh in the Democratic primary for Maryland Attorney General...."

JUICE #3: DUELING ATTACK VIDEOS FROM ANTHONY BROWN & DOUG GANSLER - In the last month, gubernatorial candidates Anthony Brown & Doug Gansler released YouTube videos criticizing each other. You can watch the attack videos below:

BROWN ATTACKS GANSLER

  GANSLER ATTACKS BROWN  


JUICE #4: PAT MURRAY, FORMER AIDE TO SENATE PRESIDENT MIKE MILLER, FILES FOR D34A DELEGATE RACE - Center Maryland's Josh Kurtz reported last week that Pat Murray, a former aide to Senate President Mike Miller and Speaker Mike Busch, has filed for District 34A Delegate (excerpt below):

CENTER MARYLAND: Patrick Murray, a former top aide to both Senate President Mike Miller (D) and House Speaker Mike Busch (D) and one of the most respected strategists in Maryland politics, will run for a seat in the House of Delegates this year. Murray, currently the director of State Affairs for Johns Hopkins University, filed papers Friday afternoon to become a candidate in District 34A in Harford County, the community where he grew up....

Already running on the Democratic side are Harford County Councilwoman Mary Ann Lisanti; retired teacher Marla Posey-Moss, who was a Democratic nominee in 2010 but finished third in the general election; and businessman and civic activist Steve Johnson.

Even though he’s joining the campaign late, Murray doesn’t appear to be at any kind of financial disadvantage in the Democratic primary. According to their January campaign finance reports, Johnson had less than $1,100 in his campaign account, Posey-Moss had $500 on hand, and Lisanti had no money at all. Even Glass, the lone incumbent in the race, reported just $3,100 in the bank...

JUICE #5: DEL. TOM HUCKER & SCHOOL BOARD PRESIDENT CHRIS BARCLAY TO SEEK VALERIE ERVIN'S COUNCIL SEAT // PLUS: EVAN GLASS RELEASES LIST OF SUPPORTERS - The Democratic Primary race for Montgomery County Council District 5 is now taking shape with announcements for Valerie Ervin's seat from Delegate Tom Hucker and Board of Education President Chris Barclay. Barclay filed for County Council yesterday and has a website up:

This weekend, The Washington Post's Bill Turque reported that Del. Tom Hucker also planned to launch a campaign for County Council (excerpt below):

WASHINGTON POST: Del. Tom Hucker (D-Montgomery), confirming a widely expected move, said he will file Monday as a candidate in the Democratic primary for the District 5 Montgomery County Council seat.... His announcement came with an endorsement from House Speaker Michael E. Busch: “I I am confident he will be a strong and effective advocate for the people of his district and all of Montgomery County,” he said in a statement.

Hucker enters the race with a significant financial edge: nearly $147,000 in cash on-hand from prior fundraising for state House campaigns, according to the most recent finance report.... Barclay can keep his school board seat while running for County Council....

Hucker's website now also announces his Council campaign:

Lastly, Evan Glass, another District 5 Council candidate, sent us a press release announcing support from over 70 community leaders. Some interesting names on his list include:

• Takoma Park Mayor Bruce Williams
• Takoma Park Councilmember Seth Grimes
• Candidate for Clerk of Circuit Court Alan Bowser
• Former D20 Delegate Candidate Aaron Klein
• Former Legislative Director for Heather Mizeur Patrick Metz
• Board of Education At Large Candidate Jill Ortman-Fouse

You can see the full release below:

Evan Glass - Supporters List for County Council District 5

JUICE #6: CONTESTED RACES FOR ALL MOCO BOARD OF EDUCATION RACES // PLUS: ONLY MOCO COUNCILMEMBER RUNNING UNOPPOSED - There are still eight hours left until the candidate filing deadline, but already all of Montgomery County's Board of Education races are contested. Notably, in all of the District races for school board there are only two candidates, and the top two candidates in the Non-Partisan Primary will advance to the General Election ballot.

Board of Education At Large (open seat):

• Edward Amatetti
• Shebra Evans
• Merry Eisner Heidorn
• Jill Ortman-Fouse

Board of Education District 1:

• Judy Docca (incumbent)
• Kristin Trible

Board of Education District 3:

• Laurie Halverson
• Pat O'Neill (incumbent)

Board of Education District 5:

• Mike Durso (incumbent)
• Larry Edmonds

At the County Council level, there are contested races for every position except for one. So far District 4 Councilmember Nancy Navarro is running unopposed.

JUICE: Sparks in Governor's Race, Candidate Updates in D15, D16, D19, D23B & MoCo 3, MoCo Exec Debate WED & More!

Below Maryland Juice provides a round-up of news of interest to politicos:

JUICE #1: PRINCE GEORGE'S LAWMAKERS ISSUE LETTER CONDEMNING DOUG GANSLER'S REMARKS ABOUT THEIR COUNTY - Yesterday a wide range of Prince George's County elected officials signed onto a letter condemning remarks from Attorney General Doug Gansler about their county. Gansler's remarks were covered in a Washington Post article about his new campaign office in Prince George's (excerpt below):

WASHINGTON POST: In an attempted show of strength on his rival’s home turf, Maryland gubernatorial hopeful Douglas F. Gansler opened a campaign office Saturday in Prince George’s County and argued that his ticket is more committed to the jurisdiction’s vast economic development and educational needs than Lt. Gov. Anthony G. Brown....

Gansler, a former Montgomery County state’s attorney, also unveiled a list Saturday of 34 current and former municipal officials from Prince George’s who are backing his campaign — including eight officeholders whose names had previously appeared on lists of endorsements released by Brown.

By Sunday morning, The Washington Post was able to independently verify that two of the eight had switched allegiances from Brown to Gansler. One of the eight, however, said he is still backing Brown, and another name was removed from Gansler’s list after his campaign said that it had appeared by mistake....

“He’s not from Prince George’s County. . . . He’s from Long Island,” Gansler said at one point, referring to Brown’s birthplace of Huntington, N.Y....

Gansler also said that Prince George’s has not seen the kind of economic development the county deserves. “When people get up in front of you and say, ‘We have one Maryland,’ we do on a map,” Gansler said. “But we have two Marylands: There are those who have it and those who don’t....”

Prince George's officials ranging from U.S. House members Donna Edwards and Steny Hoyer to State Senate President Mike Miller released the following letter in response to Gansler's remarks:

Letter from Prince George's Lawmakers to Doug Gansler

JUICE #2: MIZEUR CALLS ON GANSLER & BROWN TO TESTIFY IN FAVOR OF MARIJUANA DECRIMINALIZATION  //  PLUS: BROWN RESPONDS W/ LETTER - Delegate Heather Mizeur took an early stand on marijuana reform by being the only gubernatorial candidate to come out for legalization, while also co-sponsoring legislation to decriminalize pot. This week she followed up on her stance by calling on Doug Gansler and Anthony Brown to testify in support of the decriminalization bill. Both Brown and Gansler recently confirmed support for removing jail time as a penalty for pot possession, and Mizeur asked both candidates to do more in the following press release (excerpt below):

PRESS RELEASE

Mizeur Calls On Brown, Gansler to Testify For Marijuana Decriminalization Bill

SILVER SPRING, Maryland—This morning, Delegate Heather Mizeur (D-Montgomery), candidate for governor, invited Lieutenant Governor Anthony Brown and Attorney General Doug Gansler through her legislative office to join her in testifying on behalf of the Maryland Marijuana Decriminalization Act (HB0879).

The bill, if passed, would replace criminal penalties for possession of up to an ounce of marijuana with a civil fine of $100. For individuals under 21, criminal penalties would be replaced with drug education classes and would also include parental notification requirements for those under 18. Mizeur introduced the bipartisan bill last week with Delegate Michael Smigiel (R-Cecil County) as the lead Republican co-sponsor.

The bill has 40 co-sponsors, including Gansler’s running mate, Delegate Jolene Ivey (D-Prince George’s), House Majority Leader Kumar Barve (D-Montgomery) and two committee chairs: Delegate Sheila Hixson (D-Montgomery) and Delegate Maggie McIntosh (D-Baltimore).

After hesitating to endorse decriminalization earlier in the campaign, both the Brown and Gansler campaigns have since come out publicly in favor of the reform. Brown expressed his strong support for decriminalization at a Baltimore Sun “Newsmaker Forum” last month. Ivey has made her ticket’s support public over Twitter and at last week’s BEST Democratic Club lieutenant governor candidate roundtable....

Anthony Brown' campaign responded with the following letter to Mizeur:

ANTHONY BROWN: Dear Delegate Mizeur: Over the past several years, in our state and throughout our country, there has been a serious discussion about marijuana and its impact on our society. Here in Maryland, a number of dedicated public servants, like Senator Zirkin and Delegate Anderson have proposed legislation decriminalizing marijuana. Last year, legislation was sponsored, and passed, by Delegate Clippinger and Senator Raskin which reduces the sentences for those caught with small amounts of marijuana.

As they are currently constructed and enforced, our state’s marijuana laws are costly, ineffective, and racially biased. In 2010, African Americans in Maryland were almost 3 times more likely to be arrested for marijuana possession than their white counterparts, and black Marylanders represent almost 58 percent of all marijuana possession arrests, but only 30 percent of the population. This is despite the fact that both groups have nearly identical marijuana usage rates. An arrest for possession has an incredibly negative impact on that person’s life, often creating problems finding employment or even a place to live.

Equally distressing is how ineffective and costly our marijuana laws are: just four years ago, our state spent over $55.3 million in enforcement of this law on police costs alone. These are resources that could have been better spent fighting violent crime throughout our state, or on substance abuse treatment that could help end the cycle of use and dependency. I support the decriminalization of marijuana because I believe in strong communities where safety – and not just the appearance of being tough on crime – comes first....

JUICE #3: MOCO EXEC CANDIDATES DEBATE ON TOMORROW (WED) // TEACHERS  HOSTING EDUCATION FORUM W/ LEGGETT, DUNCAN & ANDREWS - Tomorrow MCEA (the union representing MoCo teachers) is holding a schools debate with Democratic MoCo Exec candidates Ike Leggett, Doug Duncan and Republican candidate Jim Shalleck (details below):

MCEA Montgomery County Executive Forum
Wednesday February 12, 2014 from 7:00 – 8:30 pm
Richard Montgomery High School, Rockville, MD
RSVP: https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/CountyExecForum

MCEA Event: Montgomery County Executive Candidates Debate

JUICE #4: THE MARYLAND POLITICS WATCH BLOG IS BACK - Maryland Juice considers our blog a later iteration of the news model developed by the Maryland Politics Watch blog (aka MPW). Indeed, MPW ceased operations sometime after the 2010 election cycle, but now the site's owner David Lublin has relaunched Maryland Politics Watch:

DAVID LUBLIN (VIA MARYLAND POLITICS WATCH): After a long hiatus, I've decided to start blogging again. I'm hoping to move to a new platform and URL so watch this spot to follow Maryland Politics Watch. For now, I'm not going to publish comments because I just don't have the time or desire to moderate them. Enjoy!

JUICE #5: CANDIDATES ANNOUNCE // THEA WILSON VS. DEL. VALLARIO IN D23B, BENNETT RUSHKOFF VS. DAVID FRASER-HIDALGO IN D15, CHARLOTTE CRUTCHFIELD VS. MARICE MORALES IN D19, TOM MOORE FOR MOCO COUNCIL - Maryland Juice has received a number of alerts from candidates announcing for various positions. Below you can see a quick round-up of the events.

DISTRICT 23B: This Sunday, Thea Wilson is announcing a campaign for District 23B Delegate. Notably, D23B is a new legislative district that has been re-drawn in a way that may make incumbent Delegate Joe Vallario vulnerable in his re-election bid:

DISTRICT 15: Delegate Brian Feldman recently vacated his District 15 seat to be appointed to Rob Garagiola's State Senate seat. In turn, David Fraser-Hidalgo was appointed to Feldman's vacant D15 seat. But now progressive attorney Bennett Rushkoff has announced a campaign for District 15 Delegate, and some interesting officials attended his campaign kickoff this weekend. In the photo and press release excerpt below, Rushkoff announced that his event was attended by D15 Delegates Kathleen Dumais and Aruna Miller (current colleagues of David Fraser-Hidalgo):

PRESS RELEASE

Over 100 People Pack Bennett Rushkoff’s State Delegate Campaign Kickoff
District 15 Delegates Dumais and Miller Attend

North Potomac, Maryland  – Over 100 people, including District 15 Delegates Kathleen Dumais and Aruna Miller, packed into Nantucket’s Reef in North Potomac for Bennett Rushkoff’s State Delegate campaign kickoff on Saturday, February 8.

After being introduced by Ron Weich, Dean of the University of Baltimore Law School and a Yale Law School classmate of Rushkoff’s, as well as Antonio Carrillo, a public school science teacher and local community activist, Rushkoff described why he was running for office.  He spoke about his many years fighting for justice as a consumer protection attorney and how he plans to pursue justice in the General Assembly, advocating in the areas of education, health care, and the environment on behalf of all Marylanders.  Rushkoff said that his commitment to protecting the environment comes from his belief that we “borrow our planet from our children.”

Following the kickoff, Rushkoff commented on the packed house at Nantucket’s Reef: “I am inspired by all the people who came out today to hear about our campaign for justice.  It is clear that the residents of District 15 want a Delegate who will fight for our shared values.”

Rushkoff has assembled a professional campaign team, hiring the consulting firm Feldman Strategies and bringing on former Obama campaign staffer Britney Mumford....

DISTRICT 19: This week MCDCC member Charlotte Crutchfield announced a campaign for District 19 Delegate, where incumbent Sam Arora recently announced his retirement. Crutchfield will be joining Marice Morales (an aide to Sen. Roger Manno) in seeking the open seat. Check out this excerpt from Crutchfield's announcement press release below:

PRESS RELEASE

Longtime County Activist Charlotte Crutchfield Announces Candidacy

Bringing Communities Together Through Energy and Experience

February 9, 2014 (Silver Spring, MD)—Longtime Montgomery County activist Charlotte Crutchfield formally announced today that she has filed as a candidate for the Maryland House of Delegates in District 19. She will be running in the Democratic primary on June 24, 2014.

“After many years working in the community with and for the wonderful people of District 19, I am ready to serve as an effective advocate in the General Assembly,” Crutchfield said.

Seeking to fill the vacant seat with Delegate Arora’s retirement, Ms. Crutchfield’s election will be historic, as she will be the first African American woman from Montgomery County to be elected to the State legislature.

Ms. Crutchfield's focus is Community First. Her top three campaign issues will be education, the economy, and equality. “A community is strongest when its citizens are well-educated, economically prosperous, and are treated equally. A livable minimum wage benefits workers, unions and businesses alike, and bolsters the economy. And, when every member of the community knows that their life, lifestyle and life-choices are valued regardless of sex, race, religion, ethnic origin, sexual orientation or identity we, indeed, become a community," she said.

Charlotte Crutchfield was elected to the Montgomery County Democratic Central Committee (MCDCC) in 2010, serving as Liaison for District 19, and as a member of the Rules Committee, Voter Protection Committee, Ballot Question Review Committee and Strategic Planning Committee....

MOCO COUNCIL 3: Rockville City Councilmember Tom Moore announced a February 17th kickoff for his campaign for County Council District 3. The incumbent Phil Andrews is running for County Executive, and so far Gaithersburg Mayor Sid Katz, Gaithersburg Councilmember Ryan Spiegel, and activist Guled Kassim have announced in the race. Moore's announcement is below:

Greetings, Juice!

Please join Tom Moore, his wife Amy, his kids, and many of Tom's friends and supporters next Monday as we kick off his campaign for County Council with good cheer and good food.

Come hear why Tom is running, and how he will represent Rockville and Gaithersburg on the County Council!

We have four short months until the June 24 Democratic primary, and Tom's in a red-hot race. Let's get this campaign off to a roaring start!

When: Monday, Feb. 17, from 3-5 p.m. (Presidents' Day!)
Where: American Tap Room in Rockville Town Square   
Please feel free to bring as many people as you like. Kids are more than welcome to attend.

Click here to RSVP: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1YrGoQUTRRfZ529Z9q6owR5ePPBhYayZ2QzA-xHgGBfc/viewform

See you there!

Max van Balgooy
Campaign Chair, Friends of Tom Moore

JUICE #6: KYLE LIERMAN WEIGHING RUN FOR D16 SENATE OR DELEGATE AS FIELD THINS // PLUS: MOCO BOE MEMBER SMONDROWSKI FOR D17 SENATE? - Bethesda Magazine's Lou Peck highlighted some possible last-minute candidate filings as we head closer to the February 25th deadline for candidates to put their names on the June Primary Election ballot. The race for two open Delegate seats in District 16 may lose some candidates and gain others, while candidates are still eyeing the open Senate seat primaries in Districts 16 and 17 (excerpt below):

BETHESDA MAGAZINE: Local real estate agent Ted Duncan, who had formed a campaign committee and was ready to run as recently as mid-January, has pulled out of the contest.... Veteran political operative Kevin Walling, who announced his candidacy last summer, appears ready to drop out and instead run for a seat on the Montgomery County Democratic Central Committee.... White House aide Kyle Lierman, who finished second in an 11-person race for an open seat in 2010, is said by sources to be continuing to consider another run for delegate or a run against Delegate Susan Lee for the seat being vacated by Sen. Brian Frosh.

Rebecca Smondrowski confirmed she is still mulling a run to succeed state Sen. Jennie Forehand, who is retiring after 20 years in the seat.... Smondrowski, a former General Assembly aide who was elected to the school board in 2012, acknowledged that “I’ll likely be staying where I am,” But she added of a possible Senate run: “I’m very torn. I really love what I’m doing, [but] I’m feeling like this might be once in a lifetime opportunity…My guess is that I’ll be considering it until pretty much close to the deadline....”

JUICE #7: MOCO POISED TO APPROVE PUBLIC FINANCING FOR COUNTY ELECTIONS // PLUS: CONGRESSMAN SARBANES & NANCY PELOSI INTRODUCE CLEAN ELECTIONS BILLS FOR FEDS - All members of the Montgomery County Council have signed on to legislation sponsored by Councilmember Phil Andrews to take advantage of new state law allowing municipalities to enact public financing systems for local elections. Indeed, MoCo Councilmembers seek to make the county the first in Maryland to create a "clean elections" fund and reduce the impact of special interests in elections. This effort seems likely to pass.

Meanwhile, Congressman Jon Sarbanes is sponsoring legislation to create a similar program at the federal level. Sarbanes co-signed an op-ed with U.S. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi about their new legislation, and Governor O'Malley and former MoCo Councilmember Valerie Ervin (now with the Center for Working Families) issued a press release about the effort. You can see excerpts from both items below:

NANCY PELOSI & JOHN SARBANES (VIA WASHINGTON POST): Americans have seen it on their televisions and heard it on their radios: political ads backed by unnamed sources; the work of so-called advocacy groups backed by undisclosed donors; damaging policy agendas orchestrated by special interests; endless money muddying the waters of our debate with confusion and voter suppression.... Indeed, Citizens United shook the foundation of our democracy: the principle that, in the United States of America, it is the voices of the people, not the bank accounts of the privileged few, that determine the outcome of our elections and the policies of our government....

Those of us inside and outside the Capitol who support this kind of major change are rallying around H.R. 20, the Government by the People Act, which is to be introduced Wednesday. This sensible, straightforward legislation would:

• Encourage the participation of everyday Americans in the funding of campaigns by providing a refundable $25 My Voice Tax Credit. This would bring the voices of the broader public into the funding side of campaigns and democratize the relationship between money and speech.

• Establish a Freedom From Influence Matching Fund to boost the power of small-dollar contributions. To be eligible for these matching funds, a candidate would have to agree to a limit on large donations and demonstrate broad-based support from a network of small-dollar contributors. Amplified by the Freedom From Influence Matching Fund, the voices of everyday Americans would be as powerful as those of big donors.

• Provide candidates with an opportunity to earn additional resources in the homestretch of a campaign so that the voices of the people are not completely drowned out by super political action committees and other dark-money interests. In the wake of Citizens United, this kind of support is critical to ensuring that citizen-backed candidates have staying power.

Here's the press release from the Center for Working Families about the new Pelosi-Sarbanes public financing bill:

PRESS RELEASE

Gov. O'Malley, Valerie Ervin Laud New Sarbanes Bill to Take on Money in Politics

Today, Gov. Martin O'Malley and Center Working Families Executive Director Valerie Ervin lauded a new bill meant to take on the role of big money in politics and raise the voices of everyday people in the political process

H.R. 20, The Government by the People Act, was introduced today by Rep. John Sarbanes, and has more than 100 original co-sponsors.

"We need more action and smarter solutions to improve our nation's campaign finance system and I commend Congressmen John Sarbanes and Chris Van Hollen for their leadership on this important issue," said Governor Martin O’Malley. "Elections are the foundation of a successful democracy and these ideas will put us one step closer toward a better, more representative system that reflects the American values we share.”

"The Citizens United decision has given wealthy interests a megaphone so big it drowns out the rest of our voices," said Valerie Ervin, Executive Director of the Center for Working Families. "I am proud to stand in support of more than 100 members of Congress today who want to put the voters back in charge. Democracy shouldn't be for sale at any price."

The Government by the People Act would change the way our elections are financed through a combination of small donors, matching funds, and a “My Voice” tax credit.  Instead of relying on Wall Street executives or lobbyists, participating candidates would rely on the ones the founding fathers intended them to represent: we the people.

How the bill works:

People would be encouraged to give small contributions through two parts of the proposal: first, contributions of $1 to $150 would be amplified on a six-to-one basis by a newly-created “Freedom from Influence Fund.” Large contributions would not qualify.
The first $25 contributed by individuals would qualify for a “My Voice” refundable tax credit.
Each candidate’s money from the new fund -- which would be financed by closing corporate tax loopholes -- would be capped, and there would be strict enforcement of campaign finance laws, including disclosure of all donations.

Learn more about the Government by the People Act at: www.ofby.us

###

JUICE #8: STATE SENATOR LISA GLADDEN WITHDRAWS BILL TO TACKLE DEL. JON CARDIN'S HELICOPTER STUNT - The Daily Record recently reported that State Senator Lisa Gladden withdrew a bill designed to combat misuse of police equipment. The bill was apparently aimed at a scandal involving Delegate Jon Cardin, who is locked in a battle for Attorney General against Gladden's Senate colleague Brian Frosh (excerpt below):

DAILY RECORD: A bill that would have established reimbursement requirements and perhaps set other penalties for elected officials who misuse police equipment has been pulled by the sponsor because of election year concerns. Sen. Lisa A. Gladden, D-Baltimore, introduced the bill last week but quickly pulled it at the request of her committee chairman, Sen. Brian E. Frosh, D-Montgomery.

“It will not be considered for this year because of the election,” said Gladden, who is vice chairwoman of the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee. “It will be back next year because I like the bill and I think it’s a good idea....” The bill imposes a $15,000 fine for an elected official found guilty of misusing police resources and requires the official to reimburse the agency for the use of the equipment and officers.... When asked if the bill was specifically related to the Baltimore County Democrat, Gladden responded: “Of course we’re talking about Jon Cardin.”

The Associated Press reported on the context for the bill in 2009 (excerpt below):

ASSOCIATED PRESS (VIA HUFFINGTON POST): A Maryland lawmaker has apologized for using a police boat and helicopter to create a diversion so he could surprise his girlfriend with a marriage proposal.

Baltimore Police Commissioner Frederick Bealefeld told reporters Tuesday that Delegate Jon Cardin also offered to pay expenses from the incident. The department is investigating. Officials don't know yet how much Cardin's proposal cost the department....

JUICE #9: TWO-TIME DUI CONVICT DEL. DON DWYER INTRODUCES BILLS REQUIRING JAIL & SUSPENSION FOR LAWMAKERS JAILED FOR DUI - If you haven't already heard, Delegate Don Dwyer was back in the news again. The Tea Party lawmaker has been in and out of the news in recent cycles, due to back-to-back drunk driving incidents. The first incident was a drunken boat crash that injured several children, while the second was a DUI conviction for dangerous driving. But now Dwyer has introduced two bills to create mandatory expulsion and jail-time for lawmakers involved in DUI's:

• BILL #1 - HB733: For the purpose of requiring that certain State officials who are convicted of certain alcohol–related driving offenses be subject to a certain mandatory minimum sentence; defining a certain term; and generally relating to a mandatory minimum sentence for a State official who is convicted of certain alcohol–related driving offenses.

• BILL #2 - HB734:  For the purpose of requiring that a member of the General Assembly who is found guilty of any crime for which the member is sentenced to serve a period of incarceration in any penal institution during the member’s term of office be suspended and, under certain circumstances, removed from office by operation of law; requiring that a member of the General Assembly who enters a certain plea relating to any crime for which the member is sentenced to serve a period of incarceration in any penal institution during the member’s term of office be removed from office by operation of law; and submitting this amendment to the qualified voters of the State for their adoption or rejection. 

JUICE #10: ANTHONY BROWN SLAMS DOUG GANSLER CORPORATE TAX CUT PROPOSAL - Attorney General Doug Gansler has voiced support for linking a corporate tax cut to a minimum wage increase in Maryland. Last week Lt. Governor Anthony Brown issued a press release calling Gansler's stance a Republican position (excerpt below):

PRESS RELEASE

Doug Gansler’s $1.6 billion corporate tax giveaway to be debated in Senate at 1 p.m. in Annapolis today

Will Gansler join with Republicans by testifying and explaining which programs he'll slash or schools he'll close to pay for this reckless corporate tax handout?

UPPER MARLBORO, MD – Throughout his campaign for governor, Doug Gansler has frequently and enthusiastically embraced the Republican proposal to slash Maryland’s corporate tax rate from 8.25% to 6%. Just like Annapolis Republicans, Gansler has yet to explain how he’ll pay for this corporate giveaway, which would cost Marylanders more than $1.6 billion in revenue over the next five years. The Washington Post even called Gansler’s unfunded giveaway part of a “package of panders” to Maryland voters.

Today at 1 p.m. in the Senate Budget and Taxation Committee, Republicans will push for passage of Doug Gansler’s $1.6 million corporate tax handout – the only question is, will Doug Gansler finally stand with them and explain how he’ll pay for it?

“Doug Gansler has been in lockstep with Republicans who want a $1.6 billion corporate tax handout that would defund our schools and put the brakes on several job-creating infrastructure projects,” said Brown-Ulman campaign manager Justin Schall. “If Gansler wants to recklessly create a $1.6 billion hole in revenues, he should come clean and explain which programs he’ll slash or which schools he’ll close to balance the budget. Marylanders deserve to hear Doug Gansler and the Republicans explain why a corporate tax giveaway is a better idea than investing in our schools.”

JON CARDIN INTERVIEW PART 3: Attorney General Candidate Talks About Marriage Equality, Lockheed Martin, Taxes & More

This is part 3 of 3 of Maryland Juice writer Dan Furmansky's exclusive interview with Delegate Jon Cardin (a candidate for Attorney General).

ARTICLE 3 OF 3: JON CARDIN ON THE MARRIAGE EQUALITY FIGHT, WELFARE FOR LOCKHEED MARTIN, AND CORPORATE INFLUENCE


SECTION 1: JON CARDIN ON THE MARRIAGE EQUALITY FIGHT
DAN FURMANSKY: On your website you call yourself a strong advocate of marriage equality and other LGBTQ rights, including transgender equality. You know I was the executive director of Equality Maryland from 2003-2008 and I lobbied in 2009 for them, so obviously I have an unique vantage point of who I see as a strong early supporter, and I probably wouldn’t place you in that category. I mean, I would not place you in that category.

JON CARDIN: Because I didn’t cosponsor the bill?

DAN FURMANSKY: You didn’t cosponsor the marriage equality bill in 2008, 2009, 2010 or 2011 and you didn’t speak up publicly for the legislation either, and I do recall instances where you were on the radio talking about civil unions long after the marriage equality train had left the station.

And I don’t believe you cosponsored the legislation to ban discrimination transgender Marylanders. That doesn’t negate the fact that you voted the right way on these issues, and quietly committed your vote early on to your colleagues. But you weren’t out there and in front. So given that you’ve taken a backseat on issues like LGBT rights, where the current AG was very bold with his opinion about out-of-state marriages, why would Marylanders who deeply care about these issues trust you to fight for them in the future?

JON CARDIN: Okay, I would respectfully disagree. I would only say that I came out publicly, uh, in support of the legislation every year that it came up. I believed that the legislation, it could have been done better and I, in fact, what you didn’t hear but I was saying is that I believe that all marriages ought to be civil unions. And I still believe that we should not have religion be involved in marriage, period.

DAN FURMANSKY: We don’t really. All we do is allow for clergy to sign to marriage licenses and act as agents of the state in this regard. We certainly should allow anyone to sign a marriage license and act as an agent of the state.

JON CARDIN: Okay, fine. Let anybody, or let only agents of the state do it that are really agents of the state—judges, clerks of the court, captains of ships, whatever it is. That’s my own personal belief and look, if I’m going to tell you, that’s the way I think it ought to be. I think that solves everybody’s problems and it upsets all groups basically…it upsets all groups equally. That’s my own…

DAN FURMANSKY: …I don’t agree…if we didn’t have a system whereby civil marriage is the terminology in the case law, in how family courts dealt with it…

JON CARDIN: The year before, when I was on the Marc Steiner show, before he left WYPR, along with the two, the couple, the female couple…

DAN FURMANSKY: …Lisa Polyak and Gita Deane…

JON CARDIN: Yes. I was on there with them and they pushed me on this. I made it clear that…was my philosophy. It wasn’t that I was saying we should just have a civil unions bill. Of course, I would have supported whatever wound up coming out. It wasn’t in my committee so I didn’t have a chance to necessarily be an author and doing amendments. It wasn’t an area in which I had enough street credit to be able go out and start amending the bill. Now, the year it didn’t pass, the year when Jill Carter walked out on it, you hopefully would recall that I stood on the floor, after I talked to my constituents, my very emotional constituents, who demonized me, by the way, demonized me for not being a cosponsor, told me that they would do everything they could in their efforts to make sure that I would not get re-elected simply because I didn’t cosponsor it. I found that to be so incredibly insulting as someone who made it clear that I was a supporter of the legislation, just because I didn’t cosponsor it.

When I say co-sponsorship is meaningless, it is really meaningless in the broader scheme of legislation. There are bills that have one sponsor and they get passed. And then there are bills that get 85 sponsors and they don’t even see the light of day in committee.

DAN FURMANSKY: Sure. But co-sponsorships can be a barometer for the general public about how much support there is behind a piece of legislation.

JON CARDIN: I’m not disagreeing with you that there is an opportunity there but the fact is that as an organization of advocates, there needs to be more sophistication because you don’t want to alienate your proponents, your supporters. I made it clear that I was going to be a supporter, even if I didn’t agree with 100% of it. This happens not just with this bill but with any bill, it happens within the environmental community. There’s lots of bills where I get upset because I want to know the specific details, the specifics, and there are lots of bills that I don’t agree with but I want to support the concept and I’m going to sometimes have to close my nose or close my eyes and just vote…but I came out and I publicly supported the bill on the floor, not knowing that they didn’t have the votes. I didn’t realize at that moment when I got up there and I supported it that they didn’t have the votes. And they didn’t. And I was floored when it was withdrawn.

DAN FURMANSKY: You mean that we didn’t have the votes?

JON CARDIN: Yeah, we, they being the Whip and the Speaker. When I say “they,” I mean the Whip and the Speaker. So I was floored when that happened. I was amazed that I was still being demonized. But I supported it. And then the next year, the law, you being the advocates who came around, lost a dozen cosponsors, but you got two: me and the Speaker. And it passed that year, with a loss of a dozen cosponsors. Now, I think that’s a very telling story. And have always been, I mean, look at my voting record. You can call me out on the DREAM Act if you want to, that’s fine. But in terms of equal protection of the LGBTQ community, I would say I am as…

DAN FURMANSKY: Your record is solid, no doubt about that. I was just calling out your characterization of being a strong and early supporter.

JON CARDIN: Hmm, I mean…I could go into my own, constituency, where they come from and all of that. The fact is, that’s what I believe and I’m happy to stick by my record.

SECTION 2: JON CARDIN ON CORPORATE TAX CUTS & THE MINIMUM WAGE

DAN FURMANSKY: Many forces in the General Assembly support tying the lowering of the corporate tax rate to a raise in the minimum wage, despite the fact that an overwhelming number of Marylanders already support the long-overdue minimum wage increase. And I guess according to Gonzales polling I saw this morning, an overwhelming number of Democratic Party voters are opposed to the lowering of the corporate tax rate as well. What’s your take on this?

JON CARDIN: I think that this is probably one of the more contentious issues that’s going to be, if there’s any, this year, an election year, this is one of them. We all want to see people be able to afford to live in our communities working…on…low wages. And so we want to make sure that’s available. We also want to make sure that companies can survive so that we have an employment base here in the state, so you know, it’s going to be a good solid debate and I’m looking forward to figuring out how we can bring those two together.

DAN FURMANSKY: So, are you inclined to support the lowering the corporate tax rate?

JON CARDIN: I’m inclined to…see movement. Whether it be on one or the other, and if it means bringing them together...philosophically I don’t have a problem with that.

DAN FURMANSKY: I had a conversation with your colleague, Delegate Ariana Kelly, who has been a big proponent of paid parental leave, which every other country in the world has. I don’t even know if we have one state that has mandated this. And I said to her: don’t you wish we were tying a lowering of the corporate tax rate to something truly controversial that needs movement such as paid parental leave, as opposed to the minimum wage increase?

JON CARDIN: Uh, I could see that. I mean, I’m not sure how much traction a paid parental leave bill is going to have, but…

DAN FURMANSKY: Fair enough. It just seems like the minimum wage increase should be a foregone conclusion and shouldn’t be the stepsister or stepbrother of the corporate tax rate.

JON CARDIN: Yeah. Well look, the other thing, I know that progressives think that we all, we, and me, as a progressive, we know we’re right. But we also have to get things done. And how do you do that? We live in a democracy. In a democracy we have to get…seventy-one votes in order to pass a bill. How do we make sure that happens? So…you don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

SECTION 3: JON CARDIN ON CORPORATE WELFARE FOR LOCKHEED MARTIN

DAN FURMANSKY: You were the only candidate for Attorney General who supported a bill this year that provided tax break for Lockheed Martin, one of the world’s most profitable companies. In a year when we saw the gas tax raised on Marylanders, how do you justify giving away Montgomery County tax dollars against the wishes of the Montgomery County Council?

JON CARDIN: In my opinion, that is an issue of fairness. And if we’re interested in taxing Lockheed Martin, which provides over a $100 million to the state of Maryland in fees and taxes, then let’s tax them. But don’t use a law that…a policy that has been created that is not appropriate to that particular company. That’s my… there needs to be transparency on that. Let’s be perfectly honest. They are taxing them as a hotel, and the facility that is being taxed as a hotel isn’t a hotel. And that to me is disingenuous. And, there needs to be, just…look, if they need the half million dollars they are getting from them, then tax them. Put it in a bill that taxes them. But don’t try and suggest that it is something that it is not because you can’t get that bill passed.

DAN FURMANSKY: Lockheed Martin was aware of the tax when they built the facility and from what I understand they have housed people beyond just Lockheed employees. They house contractors there, vendors there, other people they welcome. And there have been occasions where they have required individuals to stay at that facility and not allowed them to stay at other hotels in Montgomery County, which of course all have to apply the lodging tax.

JON CARDIN: I have no comment on that because I have not heard any of that.

SECTION 4: JON CARDIN ON CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM & REDISTRICTING

DAN FURMANSKY: Ok…let’s move on and talk about good government bills. Good stuff, right? So we had a big year for campaign finance reform in Maryland and you’ve been a strong proponent of this for several years, including for public financing of legislative races. Thumbs up! What do you believe are the next steps for expanding transparency – particularly by special interests such as corporations and independent expenditures?

JON CARDIN: Well, let’s pass the public funding bill. That’s a great way to do it. We’ve just passed some amazing piece of legislation out of the campaign finance commission, to increase transparency on independent expenditures, as well as on special interest contributions, requiring addition reporting dates, and lowering the threshold of the reporting in terms of the amounts of money. I think those are really good changes and I would like to continue to see that. Everybody has… the First Amendment right to make contributions, but it’s just that we also have a right to have complete and total transparency. And that’s where I think we ought to go. And I think that once we have a public funding system that is functioning and working, you’re going to see people having to really justify why they’re using significant dollars from very small numbers of special interests.

DAN FURMANSKY: You voted to support the congressional redistricting map that some say was an exercise in political gerrymandering that spliced and diced communities and diluted minority neighborhoods. The map was upheld as constitutional by the federal courts and upheld by a majority of voters, some who cast their ballots as a badge of allegiance to the Democratic Party. All of that aside, do you believe we need a new process for redistricting in Maryland and, if so, what would that look like and how would we get there?

JON CARDIN: As chairman of the Election Law Committee, I am very open to looking at new ways of doing redistricting. There [are] obviously other practices out there across the country. As an unapologetic Democrat, I will say that I use caution when I think about these things because Maryland is one of two states where…there is a partisan nature to it and it is owned by the Democrats, which have the majority. And the other…15 states that do this are all Republican and then the rest of them are nonpartisan. So there are nonpartisan ways of doing it, there is setting up commissions that makes the recommendations…and I’m totally up for doing that.

The question is… gerrymandering is…has its good aspects and its bad aspects. But the fact is while we want to make things simpler and more representative, we also want to make sure that minorities are adequately represented, that communities are not somehow disenfranchised by being cut through…an artificial boundary that is done for political purposes. And so…I think there has got to be a balance that is struck.

SECTION 5: JON CARDIN ON 2014 LEGISLATIVE PRIORITIES

DAN FURMANSKY: Any particular legislation that you are working on for in 2014 that you’re excited about and you think it has a chance of passing?

JON CARDIN: We have our, um, revenge porn legislation. We call it cyber sexual assault but you and the rest of the press will call it revenge porn.

DAN FURMANSKY: I didn’t….

JON CARDIN: Again, maybe not you but the rest…

DAN FURMANSKY: I will call it what you call it.

JON CARDIN: Cyber sexual assault, which would criminalize putting up pornographic images of another person without their consent. Simply put, it is…it is criminal to jeopardize somebody’s reputation, their job prospects, their family relationships and their psychological and emotional stability, simply because you click the mouse and put their picture up on a public website.

Number two: trying to…a bill that is geared towards reducing sexual assault on college campuses.

Campaign finance reform, obviously, with public funding of campaigns.

There is a gaping loophole in the gun legislation, which, as you know, there is a seven-day waiting period, and if you don’t have…if the background check is not done within seven days, a seller is allowed to give a purchaser the gun without having the background check completed, which I cannot believe, fathom, that that loophole is in there, but it’s permitting these guns to be put out. I think there has been examples of more than thirty individuals who have gotten guns that have been prohibited because of a background check reveal that they were not eligible for a certain reason having to do with their criminal records. And we’re going try to close that loophole.

The last thing is, I want to dedicate, I did put it in last year and I’ll put it in again. I want to dedicate 100% of the revenue of ammunition and firearms sales to screenings for the disabled and for the mentally impaired.

[Andy Carton, Cardin’s campaign manager: Sexual orientation conversion therapy].

JON CARDIN: Oh yeah, another one that we drafted, I don’t know if we pre-filed it, but I think we’re going to pre-file it, is to criminalize the use of sexual orientation diversion programs…otherwise known as...

…What do they call it? [asking Andy Carton]

[Carton: Gay therapy…]

Gay therapy…anti-gay therapy.

DAN FURMANSKY: Otherwise known as reparative therapy.

JON CARDIN: Reparative therapy…which I wanted to put in last year and I spoke to the Equality Maryland leadership and they did not want us…they did not want to focus on that issue last year.

DAN FURMANSKY: Are they now more enthusiastic about its prospects and putting support behind it?

JON CARDIN: They are much more enthusiastic.

DAN FURMANSKY: Is this your dream job—Attorney General of Maryland?

JON CARDIN: Yeah. I think that given my background, my legal background and legislative accomplishments, this is exactly where I can realize my potential. And I think that Marylanders want somebody who is both progressive and pragmatic, so I’d love to be that guy.

DAN FURMANSKY: Anything else you want to say to Maryland Juice readers?

JON CARDIN: My daughter is nearly two… Have you heard me tell this…?

DAN FURMANSKY: I have not.

JON CARDIN: My daughter is nearly two and…before she learned how to walk, she was already playing music on my wife’s iPhone and has maintained a complete relationship with her grandparents over Skype. So this is a new world that…our kids are wired to and they are wired to it, and growing up in it. And whether its cyber bullying, cyber security, online privacy, uh, environmental protection, getting trash out of the Bay: this is the next frontier that we’re going to have to contend with. As Attorney General, I think I can deal with the next generation issues, and focus on the old, persistent problems that you brought up…the agricultural certainty and point source and non point source pollution.

DAN FURMANSKY: Great. Thank you, thank you for the time!

JON CARDIN INTERVIEW PART 2: Attorney General Candidate Talks About Marijuana Legalization & Agricultural Pollution

This is part 2 of 3 of Maryland Juice writer Dan Furmansky's exclusive interview with Delegate Jon Cardin (a candidate for Attorney General).

ARTICLE 2 OF 3: JON CARDIN ON REDUCING RECIVDIVISM, MARIJUANA REFORM, & AGRICULTURAL POLLUTION

SECTION 1: JON CARDIN ON THE WAR ON DRUGS, RECIDIVISM & MARIJUANA REFORM

DAN FURMANSKY: There has been a great deal of discussion lately about mass incarceration, especially as it relates to the War on Drugs. The ACLU report you no doubt saw has pointed out the massive disparities in marijuana-related arrests among blacks and whites in Maryland, despite the fact that usage rates among the two communities are completely comparable…

JON CARDIN: The report just said not quite, I think 2.9 or 3 percent…no, 3 times more likely if you’re black to be arrested and incarcerated for marijuana use than if you’re white. I mean, that’s outrageous when usage is essentially equal.

DAN FURMANSKY: So let me ask you this: Some support a bill by your colleague from District 11 [Sen. Bobby Zirkin] to make possession of very small amounts of marijuana a civil, rather than a criminal, offense. But this is considered by many to be merely a band-aid, unfortunately, because law enforcement will still use alleged marijuana possession to target people based on race and it doesn’t do anything to drive away the underground market and regulate who is growing and who is selling marijuana, and to whom, in our state. With Colorado and Washington replacing marijuana prohibition with taxation and regulation of marijuana, do you feel Maryland is ready to make a similar move?

JON CARDIN: I support Senator Zirkin’s bill, number one. Number two, I have supported the movement towards not just decriminalization, but to…the ability to tax and regulate—legalize, tax and regulate—the use of marijuana. I think that not only is this an opportunity for revenue, it’s an opportunity to reduce or get rid of the black market and it allows us to kind of handle firsthand, the inappropriate use in a way that can be dealt with cheaper than incarceration and through the legal process, but rather through an intervention process.

I think that recreational use is…could…will…let’s be transparent here…create other issues, and possibly, other legal ramifications, and cultural, and community ramifications that need to be considered. But I am certainly open to the conversation about doing it, because we need to look at new, next-generation ways of controlling the problem side and to providing a community that actually works well together.

DAN FURMANSKY: As the top law enforcement official, how would you advocate for reforms that would reduce crime and recidivism in the state of Maryland?

JON CARDIN: Um…I would contend that you, you said the top law enforcement official?

DAN FURMANSKY: Yeah. Is that a fair assessment of the role of Attorney General?

JON CARDIN: Yeah, the Attorney General does have a capacity to deal with law enforcement. In the criminal system, obviously it focuses on the appeals process. The first thing I would do is, number one, if the state's attorney sent me a case that was in any way polluted with racial profiling, I would refuse to take and handle that appeal. Period. And what that says is that…the state's attorney needs to be very, very…focused on doing the right thing and making sure that all their i’s are dotted and t’s are crossed.

In terms of recidivism, we have tremendous opportunities and we have a terrible record of, you know, 80% recidivism in certain arenas. But we know the answer. There are programs that have shown dramatic decrease in recidivism like the Maryland Cares—I’m going to get the name wrong, but I have to jog my memory for it—which is a program for re-entry of violent crime individuals where you have a person go in and work with an individual, an inmate before they are released, in advance, close to when they are going to be released, and work with the family to set them up and prepare them for re-entry. [The Maryland Correctional Enterprises CARES program]. And it has shown a more than 40% drop in recidivism.

The problem is funding, and the issue that we have is how can the Attorney General help advise the Administration and Department of Corrections and the Governor's Office on crime prevention or making sure that those programs are funded because when we’re paying up to $50,000 a year for an inmate versus a couple thousand dollars a year to have these re-entry programs done, it’s a no brainer to make sure that happens.


SECTION 2: JON CARDIN ON THE AGRICULTURAL POLLUTION & THE ENVIRONMENT
DAN FURMANSKY: Quick question on ag [agricultural] pollution.

JON CARDIN: 1029? Senate Bill 1029?

DAN FURMANSKY: Was that the Ag Certainty bill? Yes, I wanted to positively call out your vote…on the so-called Ag-Certainty bill. [Editor's Note: Del. Cardin was one of 27 legislators to vote against the “Maryland Agricultural Certainty Program” legislation which would grant certain agricultural operations a whopping 10-year exemption from new rules to protect water quality. The bill passed and was signed into law by Gov. O’Malley. Del. Braveboy supported the legislation, while Del. Frick and Sen. Frosh also voted against it.]

Farming in Maryland remains the largest source of pollution to the Chesapeake Bay, and within agriculture, it is manure application to fields that takes the pollution prize. A 2010 study estimated that farms on Maryland’s Eastern Shore produce 300,000+ tons of excess poultry litter beyond the capacity of local cropland to assimilate nutrients. And of course the vast majority of farms on the Eastern Shore are part of the factory farming system, where they are contracted to either grow chickens as food crops or provide soy or grains as feed to one of the so-called multi-billion dollar integrators who produce poultry, such as Tyson, Perdue, and Mountainaire.

It’s clear that if we in Maryland don’t successfully address the issue of poultry manure that comes from this factory system, we won’t get clean water. Given this, how will you prioritize enforcing the Clean Water Act against the poultry industry, including these big poultry integrators who operate their grower facilities?

JON CARDIN: Number one, I mean obviously, you have to look at each case as it comes and determine whether there is a legitimate case and a legitimate issue and then devote the resources appropriate to the issue. My goal, my vision and my philosophy has been always been ends-tested programs. What is it that we’re trying to accomplish? We’re tying to accomplish a cleaner Chesapeake Bay. If we are, what’s the way to get there? The way to get there is to mediate the use of these environmental hazards in a way that’s more expeditious, less expensive than litigation and actually accomplishes our goal faster and in more friendly environment and I will do that. And if it means I have to go after the bad actors to demonstrate that those of you guys who are on the verge better clean up your act, then we’ll do that as well. I don’t believe that the status quo will work because our Bay depends on us on figuring out how to clean it up. But I also believe that we have to also look at other ways than simply just litigating our way out of it. I just think that that’s going be too slow, laborious, and expensive.

DAN FURMANSKY: Have they done much litigation? I mean Attorney General Gansler hasn’t done any ag litigation in Maryland….

JON CARDIN: Hudson Farms. [Editor's Note: The case at hand involved litigation against Perdue and its chicken-raising contractor on the Lower Eastern Shore, the Hudson Farm, for allegedly violating the Clean Water Act and polluting the Pocomoke River and Chesapeake Bay. The plaintiffs lost the case when the judge found the point source of the pollution could plausibly have been cattle roaming on the farm, as opposed to chicken litter, and cattle manure in this case was not covered under the Clean Water Act. Notably, the Hudsons did not file a nutrient management plan, as required by law, for five years, and also acknowledged that they failed to conduct a soil test on the farm, despite being required to do so every three years. Nevertheless, following the resolution of the case, the House of Delegates authorized $300,000 in taxpayer money for the legal fees of Alan Hudson, the farmer.]

DAN FURMANSKY: I mean, that wasn’t the state’s involvement. That was the University of Maryland Environmental Law Clinic.

JON CARDIN: The Attorney General’s Office gave…he didn’t have his hands on it, but the Attorney General’s Office was certainly involved in making sure that was proceeding. It had to. They’re the ones who are given the authority to do that kind of thing…

DAN FURMANSKY: My understanding of it was that it was litigated by the Waterkeeper Alliance with the assistance of the University of Maryland Environmental Law Clinic. From conversations that I’ve had, with some of the attorneys who had been involved in the case, I don’t think they felt that the Attorney Gansler was aggressive with Maryland-based ag polluters.

JON CARDIN: Obviously he has not been the lead on anything, I don’t think they were directly involved, but they were certainly aware of what was going on and they were…they did not stop the litigation even at the point they realized that was going to fail.

DAN FURMANSKY: So let me ask you a specific legislative question: there was an amendment to the budget reconciliation bill that gave the Board of Public Works the authority to grant funding to recoup the legal expenses of the Hudson farm. Did you vote for that?

JON CARDIN: I don’t remember what I did, but I probably would have. I mean, let’s be honest, the state lost the case. [Editor’s Note: this was not a case litigated by the state, but by the Waterkeeper Alliance].

DAN FURMANSKY: Would we reimburse any other industry? I mean the Hudsons, they are businesspeople. They run a business in Maryland. Shouldn’t this be a part of the cost of doing business in Maryland?

JON CARDIN: Uh, so, attorneys fees is a whole separate question. The question is…do we allow attorneys fee for any business…and I am open… I believe that if you do allow attorneys fees, you give incentives for people to really figure out which issues are the ones that are the most important to litigate, or which ones are the strongest to litigate. Because we as a society cannot afford…I just don’t think we can afford to make litigation our only way of improving the environment. It’s got to be an open, transparent conversation, I just philosophically believe that.

DAN FURMANSKY: Some people say that the case shone the spotlight on the fact that in Maryland, these nutrient management plans are secret. They are shrouded in secrecy. Somebody from the general public…

JON CARDIN: That’s a 1029 issue also.

DAN FURMANSKY: Do you support making nutrient management plans open and available for the public to see?

JON CARDIN: I have no problem with transparency. I know that there are trade secret issues that are out there and I think there are ways to create transparency, or at least to provide information, even if it’s through confidential communication, in order to make sure that, you know, we can actually use our finite resources to go after folks that are actually the real bad actors.

DAN FURMANSKY: Traditional point sources of pollution under the Clean Water Act (such as power plants and wastewater treatment plants) view water pollution trading as a way to avoid meeting current Clean Water Act permit requirements. Another words, instead of upgrading plants to meet permit limits, they purchase the right to pollute. How will you enforce permits where point source facilities can purchase their way out of compliance?

JON CARDIN: Again, looking at the office of Attorney General, the question is: what are we allowed to do? And how can we enforce that if it’s legal? But from a public policy standpoint, my goal would be to clean the Bay. And if this is working against that goal, then we need to work both from the perspective of the Attorney Generals’ Association—the National Attorney Generals’ association, NAAG, as well as contacts that we have in Washington, D.C. to make sure that—I’m assuming this is federal by nature—and certainly I have plenty of contacts from my old life in D.C. and from my family and other folks to be able to work with them to make sure that the end goal is what’s accomplished and not a way of getting around it through the mechanisms that are aimed to…to try to improve, but in a much more, I guess, slower or inefficient way.


STAY TUNED FOR PART 3 OF 3 OF OUR EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW WITH JON CARDIN SOON!

EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW: Attorney General Candidate Jon Cardin Talks About His Dream Act Vote, Brian Frosh & More!

Below, Maryland Juice writer Dan Furmansky provides an in-depth Q&A with Delegate Jon Cardin, a Democratic candidate for Attorney General. NOTE: This is part 1 of 3 of Dan's fascinating interview with Cardin. Mr. Furmansky explains the context for this interview below:

DAN FURMANSKY: In October, I was proactively contacted by Jon Cardin’s campaign manager, Andy Carton, who requested that I sit down with the Attorney General candidate to conduct a more rigorous and challenging interview than what Del. Cardin has thus far experienced in his interactions with traditional press. 

Prior to Thanksgiving, I met Del. Cardin at a Caribou Coffee in Bethesda to ask him a range of questions touching on what he feels makes him the progressive choice for Attorney General to his votes on the DREAM Act and Lockheed Martin bill to his thoughts on the best way to address agricultural pollution in Maryland.

We also discussed where he stood on proposals to legalize and regulate marijuana in Maryland, his attitude about tying a corporate tax cut to a minimum wage increase, whether he thinks we need a new process for redistricting in Maryland, and even my own feelings that he has mischaracterized himself as a “strong and early supporter” of marriage equality in Maryland. Del. Cardin was incredibly generous with his time. Here is the 1st of 3 parts from my robust conversation with him.

ARTICLE 1 OF 3: CARDIN VS. FROSH, WHY CARDIN BELIEVES HE IS THE PROGRESSIVE CHOICE, THAT PESKY DREAM ACT VOTE, AND MUCH MORE

SECTION 1: JON CARDIN'S BACKGROUND

DAN FURMANSKY: You bring unique experience with you to this campaign, including your time in the House of Delegates, an impressive array of academic degrees, experience as a non-profit executive director, and your experience running a law practice. For starters, can you tell our readers a bit about your non-profit experience?

JON CARDIN: Sure. Out of graduate school in public policy and Judaic Studies, I got a job for a foundation called the Project Judaica Foundation, which focused its time…on a Department of Defense grant they got before I started on doing research on Eastern European culture, pre and post Holocaust artifacts, and Cold war era, cultural phenomenon. And it was geared towards the Holocaust survivors and Holocaust victims, and sort of, the culture that they left behind. It also focused on everything else…the president of the foundation wanted to do.

So another thing we did, we worked on art exhibitions based on the life and death of Yitzhak Rabin, and we worked in partnership with the Smithsonian Institute on an international exhibition of the Dead Sea Scrolls, an international exhibitions of the Library of Congress' Judaic collection. That was…the more museum, research side of the Foundation. The other side of the Foundation dealt with American legislative process, which is where I spent most of my time. Because we had our researchers and grant person doing the other work, and I was bringing in groups from foreign countries and states, and from all places, Indian reservations and Indian tribes, to learn about the American legislative process and the uniqueness of American democracy. And we would do everything from visits with elected officials, with lobbyists, with press, with administration officials, with agency heads, with heads of museums, and other groups, in order to inform people on…how the American system works, of…law, diplomacy and policy works.

One specific example would be the country of Namibia, which was a just-developing democracy from Africa, was looking to learn how to set up governmental systems. And we brought them in and we actually connected them with researchers and developers from Israel to learn how to create drinkable, potable water, which is of their major issues that they had, is how do we create a safe environment for our people? So in terms of, if there is one major accomplishment…the Hopi Indians, by the way, from Arizona and New Mexico, we also worked on a desalinization program with them and Israel. Those kinds of connections probably created and save the lives of thousands of people, which is really, really exciting work that we did. So those are some examples of my non-profit work.

DAN FURMANSKY: Thank you. Tell me about your law practice. What kind of law do you practice? Who makes up the bulk of your clients?

JON CARDIN: I have a general practice where I deal with multiple legal issues. Everything from probate and estate planning…finalizing the estate and making sure that they are terminated appropriately, to criminal defense, to civil litigation, contract work, personal injury work, a little bit of workers' comp, and other…I’ve done some work in community associations, helping representing them, and other issues that come up that other members of my law firm either give to me or can’t handle because of timing or because of the nature of the issue. I have my own law practice, but I work very closely with my father’s firm, Cardin & Gitomer.

SECTION 2: JON CARDIN ON HIS UNCLE, US SENATOR BEN CARDIN
DAN FURMANSKY: Some people say in this political campaign, the Cardin name is equivalent to having more than a million dollars in the bank. How do you respond to that?

JON CARDIN: I'm blessed to have a mentor like my uncle. I have, starting with my grandfather, I have more than a hundred years of public service dedicated to the state of Maryland, including my own 11 and a half years during which I have been so honored to be able to serve the citizens of the state of Maryland. But the fact is that I’m running to represent every citizen of the state of Maryland and I think that I have a vision…a focus to do just that. And if my last name lends anything to me, it’s the ability to remember how important it is to serve every Marylander. That's what I think it adds.

SECTION 3: JON CARDIN ON VOTING AGAINST THE DREAM ACT

DAN FURMANSKY: The question that most progressives in Maryland want to know is: why did you vote against the Maryland Dream Act?

JON CARDIN: When we were in the legislature, I had a choice. My choice was—well, let me start off by saying this: when the opponents of the DREAM Act came to me with the petition to put to referendum and asked me to be the poster child, I emphatically refused. I refused because I actually don't oppose the DREAM Act. I believe we had a choice, and the choice was between voting for the DREAM Act and voting for the disabled community—the most vulnerable among us. And I chose to vote for the most vulnerable among us. I made it clear in committee, and then in the General Assembly on the floor that the Governor had pulled out $6 million from DDA—the Developmentally Disabled Administration [Developmental Disabilities Administration]—and had put $6 million into the cost of doing the DREAM Act. And I saw this as a zero-sum game and I made it clear that if he reinstated that money, I would support the bill, and if he didn’t, I wouldn’t. And I tried to get my committee to see that it is all about voting for the most vulnerable among us. That's what being a progressive is all about. That’s what running against the grain, being willing to go against the good ol’ boys is all about, and I think that I did that. I knew there would be political consequences. I was well aware and I think I made the right vote. Actually, as Attorney General, first of all, as a human being I support the DREAM Act.

DAN FURMANSKY: How did you vote on it at the ballot in November?

I voted for it. Not for the referendum, but for the DREAM Act. My issue was not philosophically about the DREAM Act. It was about priority funding as a member of the Ways and Means Committee who is tasked with being fiscally responsible and making sure we are looking out for the most important first.

DAN FURMANSKY: Doesn’t that pit the immigrant community against the disability rights community?

JON CARDIN: Look, my goal was not to do that. My goal was to say let’s…we can find…I have been progressive with my votes on taxes. I don't like voting for taxes, for increased taxes, but if you look at my record, I am willing to put my money where my mouth is. So I don't think this is about pitting anybody against anybody. I think it's about the fact that the Governor and the legislature need to take a leadership role and say we're not willing to make this decision. And I wanted to make it clear that when you have an 8,000 person waiting list, the most, most vulnerable, the most sensitive, people who can't even feed themselves, and need help, and they can't even get the state services that we are required to give…the Attorney General is required to make sure that the DDA is providing these services. But when they have a wait list of thousands and thousands, nearly 10,000…this is about fighting as a progressive for the most important among us. And so, I actually would, as Attorney General, I would enthusiastically enforce the law, because I believe in it. I just want to make sure that my opinion was known.

DAN FURMANSKY: In 2011 your colleague Delegate Jill Carter took a walk on marriage equality legislation in the House Judiciary Committee and essentially held it up. The bill didn’t pass that year, and part of her logic was that she didn't have an issue with the bill, which she was a co-sponsor of. Her issue was around school funding in Baltimore and issues that she thought were more urgent and dealt with more vulnerable people. Did you support that tactic?

JON CARDIN: The difference, I would say, is that there was...I was not the 13th vote. I have been the 13th vote on a number of things. I could have held up, for example, the millionaire's tax. I could have held up the increase in sales tax, because we had 13 votes in the Ways and Means Committee for those. I would have loved to have been able to tell my certain members of my community that I voted against those taxes. I know that there are political consequences for voting for increased taxes, especially in Baltimore County where I reside. Much more so than in Montgomery County. And I was willing to take those tough votes. The issue here was about making sure that I made a statement and trying to get folks to follow along. And this wasn't going to be…what we were talking about here was something that was very, very manageable. It was an issue that I…I mean, when you’re talking about an incidental $6 million from once place, $6 million from another place, it is very different than $1 billion or the amount of money that they we’re talking about for Baltimore City schools.

DAN FURMANSKY: Okay. So, as Attorney General, you'd have the power to challenge unlawful local government against immigrants and interpret a string of pro-immigrant reforms. What faith should the immigrant community have in your capacity to do that?

JON CARDIN: The Constitution of the State of Maryland…the United States Constitution…says that you shall not deprive "any person of life and liberty and property without due process of law." That's any person. And…I believe that not only the Constitution but fundamental principles of fairness that dictate that we should not be depriving any person, regardless of their immigration status, of being treated equally. I believe that sincerely and I would say that… the Constitution gives me the ability to do that. In just last year in Arizona v. United States, the Supreme Court determined that there is very, very limited role in enforcement of immigration, federal immigration laws by the state. So essentially, I believe the question has some pointed issues, that aren't really relevant. But…

DAN FURMANSKY: Well…Frederick County has been a good example of a case that just got decided in Federal court, and who knows what that county sheriff is going to do…he looks like a Sheriff Arpaio grandstander…

JON CARDIN: The Attorney General is tasked with making sure that every single person in the state of Maryland is treated fairly and that's what I'll do. My great grandfather came to the United States, started a business with nothing more than a horse and buggy, and that business has moved our family, my parents, my grandparents, to be able to follow their dreams, follow their educational pursuits and really be successful people, and the state of Maryland gave my family a chance. It would be my honor as the next Attorney General to make sure that the next generation of immigrants have the same opportunities.

SECTION 4: JON CARDIN ON PROGRESSIVE POLITICS

DAN FURMANSKY: The vast majority of Maryland Juice readers have a strong progressive political bend, as you know. You’ve no doubt been asked many times what makes you stand out among the candidates in this race, what makes you the best person for the job of Attorney General. But my question is this: what do you believe makes you the progressive candidate?

JON CARDIN: Well, I think that, you know, you not only need to be a progressive candidate, which I believe I am, you need to be someone who can get the job done as well. Just standing up on principle but not having anyone pay attention to you is not a legitimate legislator or attorney general. I have fought for, and will continue to fight for a public funding campaigns program. It has been my bill, my issue, and my bailiwick for the last 10 years, and before that for two years [former Delegate] John Hurson, who was one of my mentors in the General Assembly, allowed me to be the #1 lead sponsor, or the #1 cosponsor, and then handed it off to me when he went on to do bigger and better things.

As the Chairman of the Election Law Committee [Election Law Subcommittee of the Maryland House Ways & Means Committee], I have been an advocate for fighting against voter ID laws that are taking away every single person… disenfranchising every single person, but particularly those most vulnerable among us. I have been proud to sponsor bills that re-enfranchise voter rights. I was a lead sponsor for a bill that expands early voting, that allows and protects people's ability to register to vote during early voting, which is something I’m proud to say I came up with late night in Annapolis and was going over it with the likes of Senator Jamie Raskin…because we both know the constitutional ramifications of registration…on election day, and we found the loophole. I don't want to take full credit, but let’s say we found a loophole together and I was fortunate enough to be the lead sponsor on the bill.

In terms of, I would say, I have a 100 percent record with the environmental community. I think 95% or 96% lifetime, 100% in 2013, that I stand for principles of intrinsic environmental protection for…for intrinsic purposes, but also for the benefit of the entire state of Maryland. Every single person deserves to have a place where we have clean water, and free, clean air. And, I also require my community, and environmental protectors, to justify our positions and if they can't, then we need to revaluate. And I think that's the sign of a good legislator. Not just do stuff for the community because someone tells me to, but to say that we're working together on this, we all are taking ownership of it. We have to be able to justify what we're doing. I think that’s the sign of not only a progressive, but a person who can actually get the job done.

I can go on… with other legislation that I have been interested in, and focusing on… reduction of sexual assaults on college campuses—something we just, we just have been focusing on for… the anti cyber bullying legislation that we passed last year. I will tell you that any proud progressive is one who makes sure that we are not only defending the first amendment of the Constitution of the United States, but we are also protecting our most vulnerable among us.

SECTION 5: JON CARDIN ON DIFFERENCES BETWEEN HIM AND RIVALS

DAN FURMANSKY: Thank you. We'll dig a little deeper into some of the issues as we move forward with questions. So, with all due respect to Delegate Bill Frick and Aisha Braveboy…

JON CARDIN: …They deserve tremendous respect.

DAN FURMANSKY: Absolutely. At this point in the race, your primary challenger appears to be, among political pundits, Montgomery County State Senator Brian Frosh, who is a 19-year-old veteran of the state senate, and has been chair of the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee for much of that time. Senator Frosh is racking up a long list of endorsements.

I know you will likely indicate that you are not running against anyone but for the office of Attorney General, but people do want to know what differentiates you from Brian Frosh, and why you believe that you are better suited for the job than Senator Frosh?

JON CARDIN: We live in a rapidly changing world. I’m running for Attorney General to keep Maryland two steps ahead…of the threats facing our families, and…we can talk about where we were 30 years ago, and where we are today. Thirty years ago…cleaning the environment was about keeping trash out of the ocean. Now it's about getting trash out of the ocean, and out of the Bay. It’s also about reductions of carbon emissions and their impact on climate change. You’re not going to find anybody any more interested in dealing with those kinds of issues than I am.

Thirty years ago, public safety was about violent crime on the streets. It’s still about violent crime on the street, but also now it’s about hacking and online privacy, cyber security and cyber crime. Somebody needs to be two steps ahead of those new issues that concern our families. The road to civil rights thirty years ago…thirty years ago I was in middle school, and I remember the debates about equal pay for equal work. Well, we still face that issue today, but now we are also facing issues of voter ID laws. I have been a leader on trying to fight against voter ID laws. I have been a leader fighting against domestic violence, child abuse. These are civil rights. Nobody deserves to live in a community where they don't know…if a website is legitimate or trying steal your credit card information. If they are facing a problem with somebody abusing their children right next door. And I think that I have made those new, next generation issues a priority, and dealt with the old and persistent problems.

A perfect example is…who is sponsoring a bill to try and reduce child abuse? I mean, the most vulnerable among us: young kids who are being abused by their parents. And who is not focusing on those issues? I just think that as an Attorney General, your job is not only to determine the constitutionality of law, which is your primary job, but it’s to make sure every Marylander feels protected. It’s not about being a lawyer for every single person in the state, it's about figuring out and working from a legal perspective and as advisor to the legislature and the governor, from a public policy perspective. How do we best do that?

And I think that, I think, that we provide business opportunities, and opportunities for employers to stay or come to the state of Maryland. That is something that the Attorney General needs to be involved in…needs to focus on…because if we don't have an employment base, we don't have jobs.

So, you cannot be focusing your efforts on simply going after bad actors. But also creating good actors. And I think that I have done that, both from a legislative history, historical perspective, I have done that, and my platform demonstrates that. So I think that in those areas, I’m different.

DAN FURMANSKY: In some of your language, I sense buzz words around “next generation” and “thirty years ago,” and I'm wondering if there is some sense that you are trying to appeal to voters that you are a younger candidate…that this is a job that sometimes people stay in it for decades at a time and Senator Frosh has…several years on you?

JON CARDIN: The answer is no. I believe that Marylanders want, should deserve to have someone who is out there thinking about the issues that they are going be facing and making sure that person is protecting every single Marylander to the best of their ability. The question is, what are the issue that we are facing today, and tomorrow? Are we spending more than fifty percent of our time on cyber security, and identity theft, and online privacy? And the answer is, I think we are, and I think we're going have to. I think we have to figure out a way to balance all those issues, which I have spent a tremendous amount of time, and understand what kind of challenges we are facing with environmental protection, with consumer protection, with…making sure that people are getting equal pay for equal work. And I just think that I have a balance and…age is not the issue. The issue is a question of vision, passion, conviction and energy, and I'll leave it open. That’s really the issue.

STAY TUNED FOR PART 2 OF 3 OF OUR EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW WITH JON CARDIN SOON!