Represent Maryland
  • Home
  • About
    • About RepMD
    • Volunteer Rules
    • Contact
  • Our Work
    • Our Solutions
    • Our Campaigns
    • Updates
    • Upcoming Actions & Meetings
  • Become a Member
  • Make a Donation
  • Home
  • About
    • About RepMD
    • Volunteer Rules
    • Contact
  • Our Work
    • Our Solutions
    • Our Campaigns
    • Updates
    • Upcoming Actions & Meetings
  • Become a Member
  • Make a Donation
Search by typing & pressing enter

YOUR CART

3/22/2018

Why we need public election funds

You wouldn’t expect Pizza Hut to pay for a McDonald’s hiring event. So why do voters expect special interest groups to pay for the longest and most important job interviews: candidates for elected office?​

Opinion Piece by Cristi Demnowicz, RepMD Chair
Picture
Picture
Lately, there has been a lot of talk about running government like a business. If so, we the people are both the “employers” and “clients” of anyone who finds themselves in the role of an elected lawmaker. But when a candidate “applies” for this job, we the people do little to support them. Most voters do not feel that it’s their responsibility to do so, or worse, that government is something that happens “over there”, away from their daily life. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Beyond declaring important principles of the new Country of the United States, our founding fathers were not very forward thinking. They did not create any guidelines on how our candidatorial system would be funded. Why would they? To qualify for elected office, you had to be a white male landowner, which implied wealth and the ability to cover your own expenses. For years after, both elections and the voter base stayed small (white males only) and candidates didn’t need to cover a lot of geographic space to win enough votes. There was no such thing as TV or internet ads and getting press coverage was much simpler. Unfortunately this is no longer the case. In fact, a number of 2016 elections cost more than the GDP of some small countries. As elections tactics have changed, they’ve outgrown the expectations of our countries founders, so lawmakers, the two main parties, and political power players have been making solutions up as they go.

Passage of the Civil Service Reform Act in 1883 established that positions within the federal government should be awarded on the basis of merit instead of political affiliation and prohibited compulsory contributions from job appointees to the political party that got them their job. However, as an unexpected consequence, the Democratic and Republican parties, who took over funding campaigns after the civil war, no longer had the guaranteed income to do so. This opened the door for corporations, special interest groups and wealthy individuals to fill the void. In a world where money is as important above all else, it’s perfectly natural for someone who spends a lot on a campaign to expect special considerations in return.

In the years following, a lot was done to regulate how much and how often “big money” and special interest groups could donate to candidates, including passing the Tillman Act in 1901 and the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act in 2002. The former never applied to Maryland and the latter was later gutted in a number of Supreme Court cases including McConnell V FEC and Citizens United V FEC.
              
Now, almost all winning candidate campaigns are funded by specific types big money groups: corporations or corporate PACS, private foundations & non profits, and unions & professional associations (both are bundlers). And these groups have found creative ways to bypass any remaining campaign finance laws including creating shell corporations to funnel dark money and relying on superPACs, which have no contribution limits, to do the bulk of the work. What’s worse, there is a lawsuit in the pipeline to SCOTUS that would eliminate campaign contribution limits entirely. If decided in favor of the plaintiff, and without a different option for candidates who truly want to represent the people, the decision would be the last nail in the coffin for regular people being considered when making public policy.
              
If we the people are both the clients and employers of elected officials, then WE must be the ones to pay for their campaigns. Public Election Funds are the solution. These funds will have positive monetary and symbolic consequences on democracy. Because they are required to collect a certain number of small donations in order to qualify for matching funds, candidates will spend more time doing creative grassroots campaigning, instead of pandering to big money groups. This will lead to more transparency and a better rapport between voters and elected officials. By deciding to use the pubic fund, candidates telling voters that they’ll work for them, not special interests.
              
Maryland must pass statewide public election funds for all state and local elected offices. It’s the best way for our current leadership to do what our founding fathers didn’t: ensure democracy for future generations.

3/13/2018

Small Money Certification Criteria-2018

Represent Maryland Small Money Commission and Criteria 

Picture
     Represent Maryland volunteers have formed a "Small Money Commission" to certify candidates for public office who meet our small money criteria. The influence of "big money" which includes contributions from corporations, corporate PACs, foundations and non profits, unions* and industry associations*, lobbyists and lobbying firms, party PACs*, leadership PACs* and Slate PACs*, has taken over our political process, to the point that if a candidate cannot secure these types of donations, they are very unlikely to win their race. 
​
     Montgomery County MD has taken steps to remedy this problem by establishing county wide public election funds that include matching funds for candidate who "prove" their ability to connect with voters at the grassroots level by collecting at least 250 individual donations of $150 or less. The Candidate must raise $20,000 before qualifying for three times matching funds (so raising at least $20,000 will earn them $60,000 from the fund for a total operating budget of $80,000). Represent Maryland strongly believes that public election funds are integral to restoring democracy and liberty in America, and therefore advocates for the expansion of this project across the state.
​
​     All MoCo Candidates who opt in and qualify for the program will automatically be certified as "Small Money Candidates" by our commission. Candidate who do not have the option of receiving matching funds can qualify by meeting our criteria as outlined below. Because we know that it's incredibly hard to raise enough to be competitive by accepting individual donations only, we have allowed a number of organizational/PAC donations for this election cycle. As the public election fun program expands, and more candidates choose to use it, we hope to eliminate the need for this sort of certification all together. 

The RepMD Small Money Certification criteria disqualified any candidate for public office who takes contributions from the following:
​Registered Lobbyists, Federal or State
​Lobbying firms, Federal or State
​For Profit Corporations
Corporate PACs
​Real Estate Firms and Developers

​     We have also set a standard that all candidates should strive to raise at least 80% of the total number of contributions received from individuals and at least 60% of the total number received from individuals. Candidate should not receive more than 25% of their individual donations from outside the state of Maryland. 

​     We believe giving candidates these strong but reasonable guidelines will help them remember who they work for (all voters) and strengthen their dedication to working for the betterment of society as a whole, not special interests or for profit entities. 
​*Bundlers

​See the full criteria below. You can also download a pdf below for reference. 

​Candidates who would like to apply to be Small Money Certified can do so by clicking here. Certification requires that a candidate has filed at least one campaign finance report with the State Board of Elections. If a candidate has not yet filed, their certification research will begin after the next filing date. Incumbents, who have filed multiple reports with the SBE, will be researched for their most recent term. Incumbents who did not file the January 10 2018 report will be researched after the next filing deadline. 

​If a candidate qualifies, they will be added to our website, under "Small Money Certified" candidates and be send our certification seal to add to their campaign materials as needed. Small Money Certification DOES NOT equal an endorsement by Represent Maryland. RepMD never endorses candidates for public office. 


Picture
Represent Maryland’s Clean Money Commission
Criteria for Certification


Part 1: Super PACs
Candidate will sign our pledge to not collude with superPACs*, as well as ask superPACs to not work on their behalf or against their opposition. Pledges will be shared through our social media and email channels. The candidate must also share this pledge through their website, social media and email channels. (*Collusion is already illegal, but candidates who believe in small money elections should be willing to publicly reinforce the law).


Part 2: Small Money Commission Acceptable Campaign Contribution Sources

Option 1-Public Campaign Funds
If available in their district, candidate must elect to use public campaign funds, and if so follow their mandated guidelines.
If a candidate uses this option and meets the criteria above, they will automatically be certified as a small money candidate.

Option 2-Traditional Fundraising
The following pertains to candidates with no public financing option available. Because we understand that it’s incredibly hard to run a successful campaign when only taking individual donations, the following criteria takes steps in the right direction while still allowing candidates to be competitive. As more public finance options become available, our criteria will become more strict.

​     1) Candidate will strive to collect at least 80% of their total number of contributions from individual donors
     2) Candidate will strive to collect at least 60% of their total money collected from individual donors
     3) Out of state individual donations should not exceed 25% of total money raise​
     4) Candidate will publicly disclose all bundlers working on their behalf, including union PACs
​     5) Incumbents or those seeking a higher office only:
  • Incumbent candidates may not accept donation from industries they are currently responsible for regulating, including corporate or industry PACs, Union PACs and non profits for a period of 3 years prior to the race they are seeking certification in.
​Accepted contribution sources and types-Incumbents and New Candidates

Individual Donors
  • Candidate can accept the legally allowed maximum, per cycle
In-State Small Businesses (Not publicly traded)
  • Candidates can accept the legally maximum allowed, per cycle
Unions/Union PACs
  • Candidates can accept the legal allowed maximum from any union, per cycle
  • Unions who wish to support candidates with in-kind donations such as door knocking and phone banking should direct their interested members to the candidates committee for direct organizing and not organize on their behalf.
  • Candidate must disclose any in-kind donations publicly (as listed above under bundlers)
Party Committees/PACs
  • Candidate can accept the maximum allowed by law from each of their party committees, per cycle
Other Candidate PACs
  • Candidates can accept the maximum allowed by law from other candidate committees, per cycle
Elected Officials (as individuals)
  • Candidates can accept the maximum allowed by law from an elected official, as an individual, per cycle
  • If the official is also the owner of a small business (not traded), the business can donate the maximum allowed by law, per cycle
  • If the official is the chair of a caucus or leadership committee, the committee PAC can donate the maximum allowed by law, per cycle
In State Political Action Committees
  • Candidates can accept the maximum allowed by law from a PAC which is NOT formed on behalf of a for-profit corporation or industry, per cycle (with the exception of unions, see above).
  • Candidate will refuse any donations from PACs who work on behalf of for profit entities or industries (with the exception of unions, see above.)
Self Funded
  • Candidates can ‘self’ accept donations up to, but no more than, 4 times the maximum allowed individual donation, through a combination* of self finance loans and personal contributions, per cycle
  • The total combined amount accepted through these avenues cannot exceed $24,000 per cycle
Financial Institutions/Loans
  • No limit on the amount of money a candidate can borrow from a lending institution
Leadership PACs
  • Candidate can accept the maximum allowed donation by law, per cycle
Non Profit Corporations
  • Candidate can accept the maximum allowed donation from a qualified non-profit corporation, per cycle
  • Candidate should strive to receive no more than 15% of non profit donations from out of state entities
Professional Associations/PACs
  • Candidate can accept the maximum allowed donation, per cycle
Political Clubs/PACs
  • Candidate can accept the maximum allowed donation from an in state political club, per cycle
  • Candidate should not accept donations from out of state political clubs/PACs
Slate Committees/PACs
  • Candidates may accept the maximum allowed donation from a slate committee, per cycle

​Non-accepted contribution sources and types-Incumbents and New Candidates

For Profit Corporations/Corporate PACs
  • Candidate should not accept donations from publicly traded corporations, whether in state or not.
Developers/Real Estate Firms
  • Candidate should not accept donations from developers, whether in state or out of state.   
Lobbyists and Lobbying Firms
  • Candidate may not accept any campaign donations from lobbying firms
  • Candidate will not try to subvert this criterion by knowingly accepting donations from the spouses, employees or other family members of lobbyists.  
  • No investment firms*
Out of State PACs
  • Candidates may not accept monetary donations from PACs registered outside of the state of Maryland
  • No representatives of foreign interests (law firms, etc.)*
​
​*Added in 4.13.2018

small_money_certification_criteria_final_march_13_2018.pdf
File Size: 283 kb
File Type: pdf
Download File

3/13/2018

Federal Nonsense Round-Up: Mid-March 2018

Review compiled by:
​Shalin M, RepMD Volunteer
Picture
1) Grassroots candidates tout small average contributions

ABOUT: Good news - refusing PAC money and focusing on taking small donations is catching on!

EXCERPT:  
"The 2018 cycle is seeing candidates taking up populist challenges to the big donor-backed frontrunners in both the Republican and Democratic Senate primaries.

Paula Jean Swearengin is a challenger to Senator Joe Manchin in West Virginia’s Democratic primary. With Manchin, a familiar incumbent and former governor, outraising Swearengin 34-to-1, the race appears to be another “Charlie v. Goliath” match-up.

However, her grassroots campaign strategy may be effective at garnering the support of working class West Virginians. According to Swearengin’s latest FEC filing, she raised $140,226 in 2017. If the average donor gave just $13 dollars as she claimed earlier this month, that would put her total number of contributions at about 10,800 — 1,193 greater than $200 and 9,006 less than or equal to $200.

Austin Petersen, a Missouri Republican running for U.S. Senate, has not taken any money from business PACs. In October, he compared his fundraising with that of his main opponent Missouri Attorney General Josh Hawley.

[...]  

Grassroots candidates that choose to run on small contributions have a tough election season in front of them as 2018 is expected to see record-setting campaign spending. Raising huge sums of money not only gives your campaign resources but is crucial to gaining recognition as a viable candidate by the main parties.

For instance, in an investigation of how the Democratic Party selects candidates to support for Congress, The Intercept reported, “If the candidates’ contacts aren’t good for at least $250,000, or in some cases much more, they fail the test, and party support goes elsewhere.”"

READ MORE:  https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2018/02/grassroots-candidates-tout-small-average-contributions/  

OUR THOUGHTS:
  This is good news and definitely something worth following through the election cycle.  It's important to identify average total contribution per *unique* donor as some may contribute multiple times.  Note that some candidates may be self-funding their campaigns with monies obtained in less than "above board" means.  Nonetheless, let's hope that this trend continues - more "small money" candidates is a good thing for the values espoused by our Constitution.


Picture
2)  FEC leaders quarrel on digital advertising as midterms begin

ABOUT: The FEC members are battling on how to reign-in internet based political advertising that would misinform voters, specifically "express advocacy".  

EXCERPT:  
"Last month, Weintraub publicly released details of her proposal that called for increased disclosure requirements for digital ads with “express advocacy” messaging — or ads that expressly tell audiences to vote for or against a specific candidate.

“I’m very concerned about what happened in 2016, I’m very concerned about what could happen in 2018,” Weintraub said in an interview with OpenSecrets on Thursday. “This rulemaking is not going to solve that problem, but it will be a step in the right direction.”

[...]  

The FEC proposal would only tackle “express advocacy” ads. Hunter said that the commission does not “have the authority to make it broader.”

“This rulemaking is narrow,” Hunter said. “It’s only for ads placed on the internet for a fee and with express advocacy. It’s a very narrow subset of advertisements that we’re talking about. They have to directly advocate for the election or defeat of a federal candidate, which is express advocacy, and they have to be placed on another person’s site for a fee.”

The role of the FEC in regulating online disclaimers for political advertising is a debate that’s stretched back years. The issue rose to the table most notably in 2011 when Facebook asked commissioners for an advisory opinion about whether to include disclaimers on their political ads; commissioners deadlocked in their decision."

READ MORE:  https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2018/03/fec-leaders-quarrel-on-digital-advertising-as-midterms-begin/

OUR THOUGHTS:  The more transparency for the voter, the better.  Although the likely direction is a "narrow rulemaking", this will be worth watching to find what is discovered and how the rules can further be tailored to improve the odds that voters will be better informed when they go to the polls.  


Picture
3) A cyclist’s widow asked a lawmaker why she opposed a distracted-driving bill. The answer: Spite.

ABOUT: This is a story of an elected lawmaker insufficiently professional enough to represent their constituents...and it seems pretty sad, frustrating, and disgusting...  

EXCERPT:  
"The widow of a man killed by a distracted driver, Mary Carol Harsch, introduced herself to Georgia lawmaker Betty Price before entering an elevator with her on Thursday. She wanted to know why Price had voted against legislation that would double the fine for motorists who talk on the phone while they drive.

Price’s answer shocked Harsch.

“It’s a protest because they ignored my bill last year,” said Price, a Republican state representative. “I’m just causing trouble. I’m not philosophically opposed — I’m just mad.”

[...]  

John Harsch was a founding physician at Southeastern Primary Care Specialists, and practiced medicine for more than 25 years, according to his obituary. He was an avid cyclist and soccer player.

His widow told Channel 2 she was disappointed that Price, who has been a state representative since 2015, did not demonstrate the “leadership and the potential and the dedication that’s expected of you by your constituents.”

Price, whose district includes parts of Atlanta’s northern suburbs, is a former anesthesiologist and is married to former U.S. health and human services secretary Tom Price."

READ MORE:  http://wapo.st/2BP9vgc

OUR THOUGHTS:  This sort of behavior is *not* at all what the public expects from their elected representatives and leaders.  It is clearly a rather petty move for feeling scorned before and a sign that the Georgia lawmaker, and wife of former HHS Secretary Tom Price, simply cannot be counted on rising to the occasion.  This is certainly not a good sign of money well spent in terms of her compensation and how the lawmaker may misuse campaign donations. 

Picture
4) FCC inspector general investigating chairman over Sinclair

ABOUT:
The current FCC chairman, and former Verizon lawyer, is under investigation for potentially conspiring with the conservative leaning broadcaster, Sinclair Media, to benefit the company.  

EXCERPT:  
"Rep. Frank Pallone Jr. (D-N.J.), the top Democrat on House Commerce Committee and an outspoken critic of Pai, confirmed the report in a statement and praised the move.

"For months I have been trying to get to the bottom of the allegations about Chairman Pai's relationship with Sinclair Broadcasting," Pallone said.

"I am particularly concerned about reports that Chairman Pai may have coordinated with Sinclair to time a series of commission actions to benefit the company," he continued. "I am grateful to the FCC's Inspector General that he has decided to take up this important investigation."

[...]

They pointed to a list of actions the agency has taken under Pai's chairmanship that raised their suspicions. In April of last year, the FCC voted to reinstate a recently-repealed rule that would give broadcast owners a discount to help them stay under the 39-percent ownership limit. And in November, the Republican majority rolled back more ownership restrictions, including one limiting the number of stations a single company can own certain markets."  


READ MORE:  http://thehill.com/policy/technology/374001-fcc-inspector-general-investigating-chairman-over-sinclair-report   

OUR THOUGHTS:  Again, we see that in the halls of power in DC, signs of corruption are nary far away.  Considering this is the same FCC chairman appears to be siding with "team profiteers," news of some shady dealings is not especially surprising.  Net Neutrality, and otherwise if it is worthwhile to police cyberspace, is a complicated issue because of the unique "utility" that has grown quite sophisticated and ingrained in our daily lives.  What is not so nuanced is a federal official conspiring with a private company to write the rules in their favor - picking individual winners and losers for an entire industry sector is not a function of the Federal government. 

3/9/2018

Maryland General Assembly Lobbyist Event Calendar-Update March 5 2018.

Maryland General Assembly Protocol Calendar

In February, The Baltimore Sun published a copy of the MD GA 'protocol calendar', i.e. the calendar of lobbyist sponsored events for members of the Maryland General Assembly. We've since gotten a copy of the updated calendar and have posted it below for public review. 


​Donate to Represent Maryland and help us keep our anti corruption work going strong. 
Picture
Picture
Picture

2/23/2018

Corruption on Tap in Maryland

The Battle between Craft Brew and Big Beer

Picture
Flying Dog "The Truth" Imperial IPA and DC Brau "The Corruption"
Picture
RepMD Chair Cristi D dressed up as 'Mr Money Brews' at the house committee craft brew hearings.

​Over the 2017 and 2018 Maryland General Assembly sessions, a spirited debate has unfolded over the future of Maryland’s brewing industry, as state legislators have worked to impose new regulations on the brewing industry, while at the same time, Diageo North America moved forward with plans to open a Guinness brewery in Baltimore County, the first “macrobrewery” in the state. This led to a bill being passed which left craft brewers fuming over requirements that they buy back their own beer from distributors to serve in on-site taprooms, and led the state Comptroller to form a “Reform on Tap Task Force” to explore ways that the state can encourage the burgeoning brewing industry.
In the 2018 session, two competing bills were introduced, one by the original sponsors of the 2017 bill, which would look to change the regulations that had been imposed the previous year, and another backed by the Comptrollers office, that would, in many ways, deregulate the brewing industry.
Without regard to the specific pros or cons of these different bills, we see this as a prime example of the “pay to play” culture in Annapolis. In a December 2017 op-ed in the Capital Gazette, Economic Matters Committee chairman Dereck Davis wrote in defense of his efforts, “I don’t understand… why a policy debate has turned into accusations of corruption and secrecy."
After conducting some research on campaign finance reports, we at Represent Maryland have some thoughts on why that might be the case.
The chair of a committee has complete authority over the agenda of that committee, and can unilaterally decide whether a piece of legislation gets a hearing and is voted on in committee, or the chair can essentially put it in a drawer and keep it from ever getting to a vote.
In Davis’s case, over the course of his career, from 1995 to the present, he has taken at least $97,125 from the alcohol industry and its current lobbyists.​ Tellingly, $38,525 of that total has come in the last two years, as the brewery debate has come to the fore.
 
A sampling of his career contributions:
​-Anheuser Busch & its Lobbyists - $11,100
​-MillerCoors & its Lobbyists - $2500
​-BK Miller Meats & Liquors - $4000
This particular liquor store is notable as it is a business owned by the Senate President’s family
​-Buck Distributing - $7500
​-Diageo & its Lobbyists - $3450
​-Various County and State Licensed Beverage Associations - $24,175
​-Licensed Beverage Distributors of MD  & its Lobbyists- $3250
​-Maryland Beer Wholesalers Assn. and its Lobbyists - $5,525
​-Republic National Distributing - $3000
​-Total Wine & Its Lobbyists- $13,650
​-Katcef Bros. (a beer distribution company) - $2275
​-Distilled Spirits Council & its Lobbyists - $2250
​
Delegate Talmage Branch, who was the lead sponsor on last year’s bill and this year’s attempt to revise it, has received $16,250 from the alcohol industry in the past two years, including $1,750 from Anheuser-Busch and its lobbyists, $2,050 from MillerCoors and its lobbyists, and $1,725 from the Maryland Beer Wholesalers Association, and its lobbyists.
Branch is a member of the Alcohol Subcommittee within Economic Matters, and his contributions are typical for members of the subcommittee, which as a whole received $42,610 over the past two years from the alcohol industry and its lobbyists.
It seems hard to believe that there would be this much smoke surrounding the officials responsible for alcohol regulation policy, and no pay-to-play fire. This issue illustrates perfectly the flaws in our political system and the tradeoffs of money and power that happen in our state legislature. Represent Maryland stands forcefully for policies that would alleviate these conflicts of interest, including public campaign financing, banning corporate campaign contributions, and banning registered lobbyists from contributing to elected officials’ campaign funds.

​Watch a video of RepMD Volunteer Bobby B as he pointed out these conflict of interest at the "Reform on Tap" craft brew hearing on Friday, Feb 23 2018. 

Support Represent Maryland as we tackle the YUGE problem of money in politics! 
​

​

2/13/2018

Federal Nonsense Round-Up: Mid-Feb 2018

WEEK IN REVIEW
Week in review compiled by:
​Shalin M, RepMD Volunteer
Picture
1. (Shalin M.)) Is This the Collusion We Were Waiting For?

ABOUT:  A loophole in campaign financing appears to have been a "golden vulnerability" for Russian interests to funnel money in support of Trump and other GOP candidates for the 2016 elections  

EXCERPT:  
"Here’s another way L.L.C.s could be used: as an intermediary between foreign agents and tax-exempt organizations that are not required by law to disclose their donors, often called dark money groups. Indeed, in July the left-leaning Center for American Progress put out a report warning that loopholes in campaign finance laws make it easy for foreign citizens or governments to influence our elections in precisely this way.
[...]  
Speaking of the F.B.I.’s investigation into the N.R.A., Liz Kennedy, the senior director of Democracy and Government Reform at the center, told me, “If this investigation in fact finds that illegal behavior occurred, this would really be the kind of illegal foreign spending that we were warning would happen.” (During the Obama administration, Senate Democrats twice tried to pass the Disclose Act, which would require greater transparency about the sources of political donations; both times Republicans filibustered.) 
Of all the so-called dark money groups involved in the 2016 election, none spent more than the N.R.A. The $30 million it expended to elect Trump was three times more than the N.R.A. spent on Mitt Romney’s behalf in the 2012 election. 
That $30 million, however, is just what the N.R.A. spent on the presidential race. It also backed other candidates, reportedly spending $55 million overall. The organization helped Republicans cement control of Congress. If it did so with Russia’s assistance, the whole party is implicated." 

READ MORE:  https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/19/opinion/nra-russia-investigation-trump.html  

OUR THOUGHTS:  With greater geopolitical instability, cases of abusing campaign finance are likely only going to get worse without passage of the "Disclosure Act" or similar bill.  This will only exacerbated the real voice of the voters if the IRS continues to be under-resourced to address the matter and if campaigns keep getting more expensive.  Oh, and knowingly allowing this is quite possibly treason-adjacent behavior!

Picture
2. (Shalin M.)) Dark Money, Not Russia, May Be the Best Way to Explain Trump's Win: Oh, and the crippling inequality overseen by elites from both parties that has nothing to do with collusion, Robert Mueller, or Moscow.   

ABOUT:  A study from Institute for New Economic Thinking (INET) claims that Russian interference had a much smaller effect than right-wing demographic targeting and domestic based voter suppression.  

EXCERPT:  
"Vice: What did that infusion of cash you spotted late in the race actually look like? Where did it come from and where did it go?
Prof. Thomas Ferguson: Some of it is through super PACs and other parts of it are through the campaign. But it's pretty obvious what they did. The day after Bannon and Conway took over, the Washington Post printed what they were going to do, which was focus on a few industrial states and other states where they thought they could get white working-class voters. And they did exactly that. They stayed focused on it.
They were much better targeted than the Clinton campaign. We all know that.
[...]  
Vice:  How do we know we even have a full accounting of the internet mayhem here, though?
Prof. F: We don't, and we say that. But Breitbart and all these other [domestic] sources [of right-wing propaganda] were up for years. They were way practiced. And it just doesn't matter if some Kremlin folks... are bouncing back off Steve Bannon's [output] when Bannon and company are doing 24/7 for three years in advance.
Vice: You talk a good bit about voter suppression in your paper. Even if we purged the internet of "fake news" and prevented outside interference of any kind, this would still be a problem and maybe even get worse over time, right?
Prof. F: I think voter suppression needs more attention. We are way over-invested in what I call, technically, "overdetermined models of voting" [as opposed to] undetermined stuff that actually affects it, including money. There's an imbalance here that is deeply troubling to me."  

READ MORE:  https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/kzn9v3/dark-money-not-russia-may-be-the-best-way-to-explain-trumps-win  

OUR THOUGHTS:  This is an interesting take on the run-up to the 2016 election.  Experts on online media and intelligence generally say that that it is quite difficult to gauge how much influence Russian interference had.  But the big takeaway of this story seems to be that dark money simply does most of the talking for elections and is associated with voter suppression! :(  This is another reason for anti-corruption efforts to ensure dark money comes to light and all voices (i.e. *votes*) are heard.



Picture
3. (Shalin M.)) Analysis: Lobbying activity at highest level since 2010

ABOUT:  Figures on lobbying efforts and lobbyists themselves is up quite a bit over the last year.  

EXCERPT:
"Major trade groups and organizations such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and National Association of Realtors again topped the list of top spenders on lobbying, according to the tally from the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.  
[...]  
The total spending by groups included in the tally marks a near $200 million increase over 2016's total and is the highest amount spent on lobbying in the tally since 2010, which hit over $3.5 billion.
Despite his promises to "drain the swamp" of wealthy interest groups from politics, the first year of President Trump's tenure saw a 6 percent increase in annual lobbying spending compared to the previous year, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
[...]  
Trump's first year in office also saw the first increase in the number of registered lobbyists since 2007, the Center found, with 11,444 registered lobbyists appearing in quarterly reports to Congress in 2017 compared to 11,169 the previous year."  

READ MORE:  http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/business-a-lobbying/371033-lobbying-activity-at-highest-level-since-2010-report  

OUR THOUGHTS:  This sort of trend is taking us backwards and towards more special interest control of the government, not less.  The average citizen, especially the generationaly poor, isn't at the heart of nearly any of the lobbyists that have strong influence over congress members.  Trumps line about "draining the swamp" is now a verifiable bait and switch - all the more reason anti-corruption efforts are needed! 

Picture
c4. (Shalin M.)) Congressman removed from ethics committee amid reports he used taxpayer money to settle sexual misconduct complaint

ABOUT: Rep. Patrick Meehan of PA has been accused of unwanted repeated advances on a younger female member of his staff.  Due to the filed complaint by the staffer, and reported taxpayer money to settle the purported misconduct, he has been removed from the House Ethics Committee he was a part of.  

EXCERPT:
"Rep. Patrick Meehan was removed from the House Ethics Committee on Saturday after The New York Times reported that he had settled a misconduct complaint after a former staffer accused him of making repeated unwanted romantic advances, House Speaker Paul Ryan's office said.
It's unclear how much taxpayer money Meehan's office doled out to the former aide, but people familiar with the settlement told The Times that it was thousands of dollars from Meehan's congressional office fund. Ryan told Meehan on Saturday that he should repay the money, Ryan's spokeswoman AshLee Strong told The Times.
Meehan, a four-term Republican congressman, represents Pennsylvania's 7th congressional district. Meehan sits on the House Ethics Committee, which is partly responsible for investigating sexual misconduct claims in Congress."

READ MORE: http://read.bi/2DuXpKe

OUR THOUGHTS:  This is yet another case of an abuse of power and taxpayer money.  The most incredulous part is that Meehan was a member of an *Ethics Committee* and should have known better.  House Speaker Paul Ryan is right that Meehan should repay the taxpayer money used to the settle the issue.  This event comes just a couple weeks before the House unanimously passed bills to change response to sexual harassment On Capitol Hill. 

Picture
5. (Shalin M.))  O’Rourke’s no-PAC campaign paying off against Cruz

ABOUT: A "so far, so good" news story about a US Representative from Texas who has switched off the PAC money tap in his race against US Senator Ted Cruz for the Senate seat.  

EXCERPT:
"After voting against the 2014 Farm Bill, El Paso Democrat Beto O’Rourke was asked to apologize.
Not to the voters, but to a political action committee (PAC) that donated to his campaign.
“At that moment, I just said ‘You know what, I don’t want to take PAC money anymore,” O’Rourke said. “This is crazy.”
[...]  
“We’re far stronger than we would be otherwise,” O’Rourke said. “It is giving more people a reason to contribute and become part of this. They know that their five, 10 or 15 dollars is really going to make a difference. There is no PAC, there are no billionaires. This is really people.”
Since 2011, when Cruz began campaigning for the seat he now holds, his campaign has raised $119,383,925, according to September Federal Election Commission data. In the 2012 election cycle, Cruz outraised his opponent, Paul Sadler, more than tenfold."

READ MORE: https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2018/01/orourkes-no-pac-campaign-paying-off-against-cruz/

OUR THOUGHTS: This certainly seems like a good news story, but what's better is that the move seems to have really connected with voters and otherwise has given them an outlet for their frustration against special interest money. 

Picture
5. (Shalin M.))  O’Rourke’s no-PAC campaign paying off against Cruz

ABOUT: A "so far, so good" news story about a US Representative from Texas who has switched off the PAC money tap in his race against US Senator Ted Cruz for the Senate seat.  

EXCERPT:
"After voting against the 2014 Farm Bill, El Paso Democrat Beto O’Rourke was asked to apologize.
Not to the voters, but to a political action committee (PAC) that donated to his campaign.
“At that moment, I just said ‘You know what, I don’t want to take PAC money anymore,” O’Rourke said. “This is crazy.”
[...]  
“We’re far stronger than we would be otherwise,” O’Rourke said. “It is giving more people a reason to contribute and become part of this. They know that their five, 10 or 15 dollars is really going to make a difference. There is no PAC, there are no billionaires. This is really people.”
Since 2011, when Cruz began campaigning for the seat he now holds, his campaign has raised $119,383,925, according to September Federal Election Commission data. In the 2012 election cycle, Cruz outraised his opponent, Paul Sadler, more than tenfold."

READ MORE: https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2018/01/orourkes-no-pac-campaign-paying-off-against-cruz/

OUR THOUGHTS: This certainly seems like a good news story, but what's better is that the move seems to have really connected with voters and otherwise has given them an outlet for their frustration against special interest money. 

2/13/2018

volunteer spotlight: February 2018

Shalin M: The man behind Federal Nonsense Round-Up

Picture

​Shalin M. has been a big supporter from the moment he joined RepMD. From Chicago, he is well acquainted with corruption and after moving to Baltimore, he wanted to start doing something about it. Shalin is the force behind our periodic "Federal Nonsense Round-Up" posts, as well as a member of our senior "advisory council" and a former canvasser in Baltimore.  Shalin's level head and logic have been very useful in helping us work through growing pains and in making other volunteers more comfortable with our goals and strategies. And although Shalin recently moved to Alabama for work, he is still an active volunteer and supporter. We are grateful to have you as a volunteer, Shalin! 

Name: Shalin M
City: Huntsville, AL (Formerly Baltimore city)
Age: 39
Time with RepMD: 9 Months
How did you find out about RepMD?
Through a FB post that popped up in my feed. 

What made you want to volunteer with RepMD?
Their non-partisan do-gooder vibe that was more no-nonsense/pragmatic action oriented about addressing modern corruption in politics.

Why do you think getting big money out of politics is important?
It presents a terribly inaccurate and skewed understanding of an elected officials constituents and their interests. 

What is your favorite provision of the AACA and why?
To "Immediately disclose political money online." - transparency is amazingly powerful / "Sunlight is the best disinfectant."

Besides fighting corruption, what else do you like to do?
Teach kids about STEM/STEAM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Math/Science, Technology, Engineering, Art, and Math)

What do you think the biggest problem our country is facing is?
Voters being adequately informed on facts. 

Anything else you'd like us to know?
Represent Maryland is an excellent way to get involved with the root cause of the problems in our country! 

1/26/2018

Federal Nonsense Round-Up: Week Ending Jan 20

WEEK IN REVIEW

Week in review compiled by:
​ Shalin M, RepMD Volunteer

Picture
1)  Best of 2017: 10 Stories of Money and Politics

ABOUT:  A Smörgåsbord of corruption examples from 2017 - Enjoy?? :-/

EXCERPT:
"Wellspring’s dark money crucial to judicial group, helps others in Trump orbit
A single conservative mega donor poured millions into a campaign that blocked Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, Merrick Garland, from filling the empty court seat later filled by Trump’s choice, Neil Gorsuch. CRP broke the story in its analysis of tax documents filed by Judicial Crisis Network, the small nonprofit behind the campaign." 
READ MORE:  https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2017/12/best-of-2017/ 
OUR THOUGHTS:  All the more reason to keep up the fight against these counter-productive behaviors and actors!


Picture
2.)  Tax lobbyists donated millions to members of Congress 
ABOUT:  During the tax reform "process" in the Fall/Winter 2017, lobbyists were busy working their influence with influential congressional members - Republicans and Democrats. 
EXCERPT:
"Lobbyists working on issues related to taxes donated $9.6 million to members of Congress during the first nine months of 2017.
Among the 11,078 total lobbyists who have registered and actively lobbied so far in 2017, about 58 percent – or 6,421 – lobbied on the issue of taxes, according to quarterly disclosure forms filed between January and September.
Almost a quarter of these “tax lobbyists” – or 1,476 – made political contributions. Their combined average contribution during the first three quarters of the 2018 cycle was $6,520."
READ MORE:  https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2017/12/tax-lobbyists-contributions/
OUR THOUGHTS:  It is particularly interesting to see how the split of monies was accepted by members of different parties.  Democratic congressional members in predominately red/purple states accepted lots of funds from the tax lobbyists.  Although few Democrats voted for the recently passed tax bill, it still shows influence for loopholes, waivers, exceptions, etc. for various industries. 


Picture
3.)  Why the government shutdown actually costs money
ABOUT:  It's not a simple as flicking off a light switch and flicking it on later! 
EXCERPT:
"Budget experts and past analyses by the White House budget office have found that a shutdown hurts the U.S.’ finances in a number of ways. Furloughed workers almost always get paid retroactively for the time they were out—which means taxpayers are laying out money without getting any work in return. Museums and national parks can’t collect fees and revenues from other sources like gift shops. Perhaps most importantly, federal workers spend thousands of cumulative work hours preparing for the event and recovering from it, literally shutting down their systems and then restarting them once the government reopens—paid work that is utterly unnecessary to the normal business of running the country, and sucks time away from safety inspections, or reviewing research grants, or whatever their actual responsibilities are.
Quantifying the exact cost to the government is difficult, in part because every shutdown is different. Between November 1995 and January 1996, the government shut down twice for a total of 27 days as Democrats and Republicans clashed over Medicare funding, among other issues. A subsequent analysis conducted by the White House’s Office of Management and Budget estimated that both shutdowns together cost the government $1.4 billion—more than $2 billion today after adjusting for inflation. "
READ MORE:  https://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2018/01/21/why-the-government-shutdown-actually-costs-money-000624
OUR THOUGHTS:  The brinksmanship over the funding of the government has cost the taxpayers in some very real ways.  Although the markets somewhat shrugged it off as a "well, this is what's normal now", the uncertainty cost real money to real people.  This is incredibly irresponsible and disappointing and only seems to get worse as more corruption is allowed. 


1/17/2018

VOLUNTEER SPOTLIGHT: JANUARY 2018

bOBBY b: OUR GO TO GUY FOR UNDERSTANDING LOCAL LAWS

Bobby B joined Represent Maryland when we were in a time of flux. It was just before the 2016 elections, and a lot of volunteers were getting burned out on politics. We actually took a break from being very active right after his first meeting, but he stuck with us anyway!
Bobby has been a great resource by helping us find where to look for answers, and working through problems. As one of our volunteers most informed about the current status of campaign fiance in MD, he co-wrote our Small Money Certification Criteria for 2018 elections. Bobby is consistent, keeps educating himself  and is eager to help, qualities that make him an invaluable volunteer!


Name: Bobby B
City: Germantown, MD
Age: 33
Time with RepMD: 1.5 years
Picture
How did you find out about RepMD?
A friend mentioned he'd gotten involved and it sounded interesting so I searched them out.

What made you want to volunteer with RepMD?
I liked the grassroots approach to taking on this massive issue that is deeply intertwined with all our other problems.

Why do you think getting big money out of politics is important?
Because this is the problem we have to solve before we can seriously address virtually any other problems within our society.

What is your favorite provision of the AACA and why?
Public campaign financing, because it addresses the problem of corruption most directly.

Besides fighting corruption, what else do you like to do?
Spend time with my family, and home brew beer.

What do you think the biggest problem our country is facing is?
Our government has been warped to protect and entrench those who are already powerful, while ignoring regular people.

Anything else you'd like us to know?
A couple favorite quotes I've found helpful when helping RepMD move the needle on some important work:
- Work the problem, not the person.
- Find error, not blame.
:-)

11/29/2017

Federal Nonsense Round-Up: Week Ending Nov 25

Week in Review

Week in review compiled by:
​ Shalin M, RepMD Volunteer, Baltimore City, Laura H, RepMD Volunteer, St Michael's,
Lisa M, RepMD Volunteer, Baltimore City & Cristi D, RepMD Chair.
Picture
1)
​Congress’ sexual harassment system, decoded


ABOUT: 
​Recent revelations about sexual harassment and misconduct on the part of Congressmen have brought attention to the Office of Compliance, an obscure branch of Congress that acts as a kind of Human Resources for the institution. Over the past 20 years, 17 million dollars have been quietly paid out in settlements to complainants to the OOC, but not all of it was to sexual harassment settlements. In addition to sexual harassment claims against congressmen and aides, the OOC also handles complaints related to workplace safety and other issues.  Because the OOC does not release details of the cases, and because it has many confidentiality measures in place, there’s no way to know what percentage of the 17 million went to settling sexual harassment claims. 

The OOC is not the only way that congressional money is being used to settle sexual harassment claims, however.  A complainant against Representative John Conyers was paid a settlement through Conyers’ own office, out of the office budget. His office created a fake position for the complainant and paid her for 3 months through payroll to the amount of $27,000. If this has been common practice, there’s no telling how much money has gone to settling these complaints. 
Congresswoman Jackie Speier (D-CA) last week rallied against this state of affairs, saying that the OOC needs to have more transparency and that Congressmen should be legally liable for their behavior.  She pointed out that the issue of sexual harassment is bipartisan, with accusations against congress members of both parties.  In collaboration with Speier, Senator Kristen Gillibrand is sponsoring a bill that would require changes to the OOC. Meanwhile, both branches of government are instituting sexual harassment training , but some are concerned the current class, which is taken online, is not a strong enough measure to address the issue. 

EXCERPT:  
"The trappings of confidentiality, they permeate the process," said Alexis Ronickher, an attorney who has represented several clients pursuing harassment claims through the compliance office. "The law is written to create a system to disincentivize staffers from coming forward."

READ MORE:
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/21/congress-sexual-harassment-slush-fund-255547

ADDITIONAL INFO:
The OOC, in addition to paying out settlements, also has procedures which keep victims quiet.  As may be expected facing the OOC’s process, 80% of accusers choose not to follow up on their complaints. 

OUR THOUGHTS (Laura H.):
If members of Congress are being shielded from the consequences of their own bad behavior using public money, this is a matter of public interest. Taxpayer money must cease to be used to provide cover for sexual harassers, whether through the OOC or through the Congressional offices. Most importantly, Congress should create a system where victims of misconduct are safe, and are able to get relief from their situations without being silenced.


2) 
​“Siding with Trump, judge rules Mick Mulvaney to remain interim CFPB head” 


ABOUT: 
A battle for control of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau took place this week, and exemplified the fight between Republicans and Democrats over how to regulate Wall Street following the 2007-2009 financial crisis that cost taxpayers $700 billion in bailouts.  Last Friday, Richard Cordray stepped down as director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. On his resignation, Cordray appointed an aide, Leandra English, to Acting Deputy Director of the CFPB. Upon hearing of Cordray’s resignation, President Trump appointed John Michael (Mick) Mulvaney to be Director of the CFPB. After a brief court battle, a judge ruled in Mulvaney’s favor, and he will be the acting director in the interim while President Trump decides on a permanent nominee for the role. By all accounts, Mulvaney is an arch fiscal conservative with an anti-regulation stance more extreme than most of his peers. Indeed, on his first day as Director, Mulvaney ordered a hiring freeze and ceased all cases in the pipeline. 

“Referring to Trump's view of the watchdog's mission, Mulvaney said: "He wants me to get it back to the point where it can protect people without trampling on capitalism, without choking off the access to financial services that are so critical to so many folks." 

READ MORE:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/11/28/judge-rules-mick-mulvaney-remain-interim-headin-leadership-fight-consumer-financial-protection-burea/902173001/

ADDITIONAL INFO:
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is a 1600-employee U.S. government agency that makes sure banks, lenders, and other financial companies treat consumers fairly.  Following the 2007-2009 financial crisis, the CFPB was created under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act) and began operation in June of 2011. The CFPB acts as a watchdog for lending practices that leave people vulnerable to financial catastrophe, such as payday loans, bad student and mortgage loans, and exploitative credit card contracts. The organization also has a complaint line and provides sound financial advice to users of banks and loans.  Since its inception, the CFPB has provided $11.9 billion dollars in relief from predatory practices to more than 29 million people, and handled more than 1.2 million complaints from individuals about predatory financial practices.  https://www.consumerfinance.gov/
Interim director of the CFNB Mick Mulvaney is extremely fiscally conservative and has gained the nickname “Mick the Knife” for his eagerness to cut spending in government.  In his previous role as Director of the Office of Management and Budget, Mulvaney has encouraged President Trump to slash the Medicaid and Medicare budgets, as well as Social Security disability benefits. In his role at the OMB, “[Mulvaney] has questioned whether government should fund Meals on Wheels or diabetes treatment for patients who “eat poorly,” called climate action “a waste of your money,” hinted that the Energy and Education departments might be unconstitutional, and suggested he would welcome another shutdown.” Mulvaney prioritizes the border wall and military spending.  (https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/09/01/mick-mulvaney-omb-trump-budget-profile-feature-215546)

OUR THOUGHTS (Laura H.): 
The CFPB acting as a watchdog and upholding the law against the banking industry is a necessary piece of government machinery.  The detractors of the CFPB argue that the organization has too much power, but what about the banks?  When an individual is defrauded through predatory practices, the CFPB might be their only recourse against a predatory lender.  When the lending industry was given free reign, without regulation and a way to enforce it, it resulted in the 2007-2009 financial crisis, and the banks needed a 700 billion dollar bailout.  Commercial banks have spent millions lobbying congress and millions in campaign contributions this year alone, the majority of them to republicans (
https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=F03). They are likely happy with Mulvaney’s appointment; but we should not be. If Mulvaney follows the path of cutting and gutting the CFPB, there will be less protection for the individual against the powerful lending industry, and the economy will once again be at risk of catastrophe due to bad banking practices.



Picture
Picture
3) 
​Big Money Is Buying Up Puerto Rico’s Risky Real Estate


ABOUT: 
Standard "buy low, sell high" market forces are at work in Puerto Rico after the devastation by two major hurricanes this past Summer/Fall.  However, it appears not all (or even most) investors care about the local economy or its participants.  And Puerto Rico is not the average "fixer upper", either.  


EXCERPT:  
The gambit could certainly work out -- many of the homes, after all, have spectacular views of the Caribbean that could be pitched to well-heeled Americans -- but long-time Puerto Rico investors see trouble ahead. Chief among their concerns: bidding wars are breaking out for the loans at the same time that their quality is deteriorating. It’s a tell-tale sign that the market is getting frothy and that turning a profit could prove tricky on an island where the government is mired in default, the economy has been contracting for a decade and foreclosure is a long and cumbersome process.
[...]
Blanco, who ran OCIF until December, when he became a real estate investor himself, said he remembers a dozen funds investing in Puerto Rico mortgage pools during his tenure.  
“They did OK on some assets, and they didn’t do as well in others,” he said. “The foreclosure thing is one problem. Then there’s another problem, and it’s that Puerto Rico is still in financial straits. The economy here isn’t moving very well. So to dispose of assets is not easy.”  

READ MORE:  https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-07-14/puerto-rican-mortgages-deeply-distressed-and-suddenly-in-demand

OUR THOUGHTS (Shalin M.): 
​With many investment firms inexperienced with real-estate and/or Puerto Rico in the hunt for "diamonds in the rough", the potential for haunting echoes of the housing crash to sound over an American island in the Caribbean is uncomfortably high.  This is a situation that is made more difficult due to the island's financial situation.  Thus, organization that know how to provide great care where the invest should be in order - however the incentive/disincentive structure does not appear to be sufficiently robust to encourage investors toward a path of the greatest wins for both profit and (local) people.  And this is nothing to say of the legal battles after "bait & switch" tactics where property owners may become homeless.  The work for new kinds of opportunities in Puerto Rico should proceed with additional care.  



4) 
​Trump administration, in a gift to telecom firms, is pulling the plug on net neutrality  


ABOUT: 
Trump's pick for FCC chair, Ajit Pai, is leading the charge to rollback net neutrality rules enacted during the previous chair's term.  The Internet Service Providers (ISPs) say this the rules are onerous and limit their ability to serve their shareholders with healthy profits.  



EXCERPT:  
At its heart, net neutrality is about guaranteeing a level playing field for all online services and content providers. It ensures that broadband providers such as phone and cable companies can't give preferential treatment to anyone — their own streaming-video service, say, over Netflix or Amazon Prime Video.
[...]  
Now President Trump's appointee as FCC chairman, Ajit Pai, is proposing to gut those rules, which he said have "depressed investment in building and expanding broadband networks and deterred innovation." 
[...]
Here's the catch: Along with giving phone companies the go-ahead to block calls, the FCC told them they can pass along to customers any costs incurred in stopping robocalls.
In other words, it's virtually guaranteed that if your phone company cracks down on robocalls, you'll see yet another fee on your bill. Or robocall filtering will be offered as an add-on service, like call waiting.
So the problem is being addressed.
But, like better broadband access, it'll cost you.

READ MORE:  http://beta.latimes.com/business/lazarus/la-fi-lazarus-fcc-net-neutrality-20171124-story.html  

ADDITIONAL INFO: 
Debates on the pros/cons of regulation of the internet have been going on for several years.  This is primarily driven by nightmare scenarios of 1984's Big Brother using information of every man, woman, and child to enact an outsized influence on their lives through gentle or explicit coercion.  But also, that internet sites will have limited access to viewers and vice-versa based on the whims of the ISPs.  


OUR THOUGHTS (Shalin M.): 
​The idea of regulating the internet is a complicated endeavor as sometimes the "internet tollbooth operators" of which the ISPs would be are less dangerous than the "content captors" like Facebook, Apple, Amazon, and Alphabet (Google)!  The idea of limiting visibility to some sites because of their content that may be unfavorable to the ISP (or its interests) shows an obvious and inherent conflict of interest.  It is true there are issues to address on the "content captors" side as well, but rolling back net neutrality rules entirely would be dangerous and potentially a violation of the 1st Amendment.  The decision to repeal the net neutrality rules should not even be held by the 5 members of the FCC rule committee on 
14 Dec 2017.  

Related, this is a worthwhile look:  Meet the People Building Their Own Internet in Detroit, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1B0u6nvcTsI
Picture
<<Previous
Forward>>

    RSS Feed

    Archives

    October 2020
    May 2020
    January 2020
    April 2019
    March 2019
    September 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    November 2017
    October 2017

    Categories

    All Action Alert Annapolis MD Baltimore County Big Banks Candidate Endorsment Corruption DNC Scandal Drugs Elections EPA FCC Federal Nonsense Get Big Money Out Greenbelt MD Imran Awan Maryland Politics Military Money Laundering Monsanto Net Neutrality President Trump Prison For Profit Public Election Funds Puerto Rico Represent Maryland Sexual Harrasment Sinclair Broadcasting Small Money Certification Takoma Park MD Tax Payer Money Trump Volunteer Spotlight Voter Suppression Wall Street Week In Review

Contact us:
cristi@representmaryland.org

DONATE
© COPYRIGHT 2020 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
​Paid for by Represent Maryland PAC.
Authorized by Tony Miller, Treasurer
​Not affiliated with any candidates, campaigns or parties.