Madigan on 2014
In 2010, then 18 year old Brendan Madigan made a bold bid for Comptroller in the GOP primary. He lost to the ridiculously qualified Bill Campbell. That said, the young man made a fairly strong bid for the role and is still interested in staying involved in MD politics. He recently released the following announcement:
While I did not expect to be making an announcement regarding the 2014 election so early in the cycle, I felt that an announcement regarding my intentions was appropriate as my former Primary opponent and 2010 Republican nominee for the office of Comptroller of Maryland made clear his intentions last week to seek the nomination once again in 2014. After taking a realistic look at the race over several months, I made the decision to not seek the office of Maryland Comptroller again in 2014. As we looked closely at the race, it became clear that the expense of a substantial campaign would be in excess of $100,000. Simply put, we felt that it would be very difficult to raise that kind of money for a race that is not at the top of the ticket. Although I have my differences with Mr. Campbell, I believe that he is an honorable and principled man, and I endorse his campaign for the office of Comptroller of Maryland.
While I will not be seeking the office of Comptroller of Maryland, I remain interested in pursuing lower office in 2014, namely the delegate seat in my home district of 5B where Delegate Kach has made a number of anti-family votes. I will continue to explore a run in this district, but do not intend to make any formal announcement for at least another year. At this time, I am focused on fighting for Maryland families, not running for political office."
Madigan is someone to watch in 2014 as a potential candidate for Delegate in 2014 and would be the youngest member if elected.
On School Boards
My friends on the right in Maryland like to lament about the lack of local accountability for many of the school boards in Maryland. In Baltimore County specifically, our school board is appointed - by the Governor, in its entirety. This is unacceptable - as there really is no local accountability. That said, I do not support a fully elected school board. Why? I lived through them.
I grew up in upstate New York. In our area, local school boards are a) hyper local and b) directly elected in non-partisan races. What this led to in the past were a few issues. First, a number of locals who happened to be well known with little to no qualifications or ability get elected. These people in New York have the power to levy school taxes and completely define the local school budget. They also have the power to appoint school administrators. This led to some awful budgets, poor execution, and people elected who focused on raising the budget in their pet areas (ex. very specific school sports programs)
The second problem can be summed up in two words: teacher's unions. In some cases, I have seen teacher's unions pushing puppet candidates just to help themselves. I've seen spouses of teachers, including in one local election a former teacher who was fired having her husband run for school board. He lost, thankfully, but barely. Teacher's unions will become active in these types of elections and will push their own puppet candidates. The question is will local resident's recognize a puppet versus a serious contender for the post.
Thirdly, politics are driven into the school board. Whether intentional or not, making school board members elected by definition will make the board more political. Candidates will have a platform, plan for what they want to do - will be accountable to the voters. This is a good thing, but also a double edged sword. A focus on reelection by school board members may lead to them making decisions politically based on what will give them more votes as opposed to what is in the best interest of the entire school board.
On the other hand, being elected means they are beholden to the people and will be more focused on local needs. This is good. This is why I support the proposal for a partially elected school board as discussed during the legislative session. A number of members beholden to the people and a number of members appointed based on qualifications picked by the Governor or local government (the latter I would prefer).
Campbell 2014
2010 Maryland GOP Comptroller candidate Bill Campbell has established a committee with the state board of elections and is rumored to be running for Comptroller again in 2014. As Campbell recently said, "In 2010 I received 691,461 votes (39%) with no money and no organization." Imagine what he could do in a potentially open seat with an organization prepared in advance and a larger war chest. With Franchot all but saying he's running for Governor, that would leave the lesser known and less glamorous Comptroller's seat open. For those who don't know, Campbell is the former Chief Financial Officer of Amtrak serving from 2007 to 2009. Prior to that, he served as CFO for the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. You can check out my interview I conducted with Campbell in 2010 here.
If Campbell is running again, I'm all in and I think he'd have a serious shot at the seat. I have a soft spot for the Comptroller's seat. I lived in New York in 2006 when a man who was stealing from the State of New York and getting payoffs for favors among other crimes won reelection for Comptroller over an honest, Republican, County Treasurer. We can not ignore lesser known posts like this and we need honest people in those positions. Campbell would make an excellent Comptroller and again - if he runs, count me in as a supporter.
Retro Old Line Elephant: In Defense of Term Limits
Originally posted February 10, 2010 - I still support term limits, although this specific legislation is a little outdated
In 2010, Delegate James King (R) proposed HB660, which would bring up to a vote a Constitutional amendment to implement 2 term limits for the General Assembly, Comptroller, Attorney General, and Governor. Over at Red Maryland, Brian Griffiths made some valid arguments about term limits, but I respectfully disagree.
The central point to Mr. Griffiths; argument is that Maryland will become like California, where deficits are out of control because the only memory left in the system is that maintained by unelected political insiders. While partially true - it fails to note a few key elements of the term limit proposal. First, the assumption is that Maryland will automatically fall into the trap that California has fallen into - he fails to note the number of other States which are doing just fine with term limits. Only 30% of States have legislative term limits, yet in 2010, 4 of the lowest unemployment rates in the US are from States with legislative term limits. The number one and number four lowest State budget deficit as a percentage of their general fund...have legislative term limits.
Second, the system does not work well as is. We have the same people in office for decades voting the same way in a rarely changing legislature. With term limits it allows people the freedom to enter into office with their own individual agenda to hope to accomplish, and not be as beholden to the party establishment. People will be able vote based on their conscience and not merely based on party whipping. The concept of citizen legislators is something to which we should all strive. Politics should not be a career path - politics can not be the only thing that defines ones life. But, I've discussed this before, so I digress.
Third, I agree with Griffiths on his other proposed reforms. Single member legislative districts and independent redistricting are great ideas. I feel that a combination of reforms are necessary to fix our legislature and our government. Term limits will minimize permanent politicians; single member districts would make each legislator more directly accountable; and independent redistricting will prevent the Democratic establishment from removing all the Republican leaning districts.
Now, to deal with the undue influence of lobbyists? I propose that we require State legislators to publicly declare any relative, former staff member, or personal connection who is a declared lobbyist on any level of government. By publicly declare, I mean that they should list those connections on the official webspace provided them by the State of Maryland. Also, we should require that State legislators and their staff are required to wait at a minimum of 24 months following the end of their service to the State to become a State or federal lobbyist. These are just two proposals, but I am sure there are other common sense, Constitutionally sound reforms we can come up with reasonable limits and open information.
Preventing undue influence by "professional staffers" I think is less of an issue than Mr. Griffiths seems to appear. Historic Congressional data suggests that the average staff person serves in office for approximately 5 to 6 years, compared to the average term of a Congressman of 10 years. I've never worked in a legislative office, so I can not discuss with confidence on the culture. All I know is that if I were a newly elected legislator that I would only want minimal carryovers and staff that was dedicated to assistance with legislative research. With term limits, aides would be focused less on those activities that many legislators do to bolster reelection bids (the press releases, mass mailings, etc) and more on the job of helping the legislator...legislate.
Now, this is not the perfect proposal, I think bringing this idea forward is the right idea. I would be more supportive of 3 terms for State Legislatures to allow for more memory in the Legislature, but even openly discussing the possibility is a step in the right direction. Openly debating the pros and cons of term limits is good and healthy.
