After an uphill battle throughout this legislative session, the bill for public financing finally came up for a vote on the Senate floor last Friday afternoon. In a 23-24 vote the Senate rejected SB 546 - a result that was encouragingly close, yet also immensely disappointing.
In the end it came down to one vote. What is especially frustrating about the closeness of the vote was losing a co-sponsor at the last minute when Sen. Currie folded under pressure from the ever-powerful Senate President Mike Miller.
While much has been said (in my own posts and by others) about the role Miller and Currie had in killing the bill, it looks like the real enemy of the legislation was Sen. Bobby Zirkin. As a Delegate, Zirkin voted for the bill, but apparently now he's changed his tune.
Could there maybe be a connection between Zirkin's new anti-clean elections position and the fact that he spent just a little under $300,000 on his 2006 campaign? He faced a tough primary challenge last year, and obviously chose to spend a huge amount of money to defeat his opponent, Scott Rifkin, who actually overspent Zirkin by about $300,000. All in all these two Democrats spent over $700,000 on their primary campaigns. $700,000!
And it's not only that Zirkin voted against the bill. He actively and vehemently opposed SB 546, even after supporting the same bill as a Delegate. Despite strong grassroots pressure and calls from his constituents, Zirkin apparently decided that he needed to take action against the bill, and had been prepared to give a lengthy speech on the evils of clean elections on the Senate floor had the bill come up for debate. We were all spared Zirkin's tirade, however, when the bill was voted on late Friday afternoon without much debate at all.
It is unclear at this point why he opposed the bill so strongly, other than his campaign experiences last year. Even this fails to satisfactorily explain why Zirkin took on SB 546 as his own personal crusade against campaign finance reform. Will Zirkin feel this strongly opposed to clean elections next year? Who knows, but his constituents should hold him accountable either way. Although Zirkin seemingly ignored grassroots pressure this session, he needs to know that Marylanders will not just let this issue go. We care about accountability in our government, and we think getting money out of politics and enacting public financing for legislative campaigns should be a priority.
After battling against Miller, Zirkin, and others all session, a vote as close as 23-24 was actually unexpected by many clean elections supporters, especially considering that at this time last week it was doubtful that the bill's opponents would even allow a vote. This legislative session can be seen as a missed opportunity for implementing much-needed reform in Annapolis, but we should also take note of the huge progress that's been made towards enacting public financing in the near future.
Despite the bill being voted down on Friday, the future of clean elections in Maryland is bright. Here are some of the reasons why clean elections legislation has an even better chance of passing the Senate next year:
Currie's defection was a severe blow to SB 546 this year, but he publicly pledged to support and vote for public financing next year, once the budget deficit has been solved. This vow to support the issue, made in front of the public and his fellow Senators, should ensure his vote on future clean elections bills.
Similarly, Sen. Muse switched his vote to oppose the bill based on misinformation that had been fed to him at the last minute. Getting him to support public financing again next time the bill is proposed shouldn't be too difficult.
The Bromwell scandal, an excellent example of the corrupting influence of big money in politics, will once again make headlines when the ex-Senator's trial for corruption begins this fall. Many expect that Bromwell will cop a plea and tell all before or during the trial. As more damning details come out about his cozy relationship with special interests and big businesses, the case for clean elections in Maryland will be strengthened exponentially.
Miller, the bill's staunchest opponent, has now made slot machines his priority, and will likely spend most of his time and political capital fighting to implement slots next session. This, coupled with the possibility that his hold on power in the Senate will loosen as he nears retirement, means that he most likely won't be able to fight so hard against clean elections next year.
Another good sign for the future of clean elections in Maryland is that an unexpected three Republican Senators voted in favor of the bill. These three are all leadership (Brinkley, the Minority Leader; Kittleman and Harris, co-whips), and their support shows that this is a bipartisan issue.
It is important for those of us who support clean elections to continue to speak out about the issue and to urge our lawmakers to enact public financing legislation. Taking big money out of politics will be a win-win for everyone. Our politicians would be freed of the burden of constant fundraising, and our elected officials would truly be accountable to us. The 23 `Yea' votes this session are extremely encouraging, and they show that public financing is a realistic hope for Maryland. Let's keep the pressure on our lawmakers, and make sure that this bill has even stronger support when it is reintroduced next year.
Cross posted at Free State Politics.
