Try digitalPLUS for 10 days for only $0.99

Opinion

News Opinion

Lollar campaign finance report raises questions

Republican gubernatorial hopeful Charles Lollar's supporters often say that he is "the only candidate that can win," but his campaign finance report raises more questions than answers.

(Disclosure: Red Maryland's editors have unanimously endorsed Larry Hogan for governor.)

Lollar's gubernatorial campaign raised a paltry $65,329.67 during the last year, and he has only $5,731.35 available cash-on-hand according to the filings due to the Board of Elections yesterday.

That's not the interesting part.

Since September Charles Lollar has been directly paid $10,117.20 by the campaign in reimbursements. The reimbursements are often described in the filings as "meeting expenses," one every month from September through December.

Lollar's curious reimbursements harken back to his 2010 Congressional campaign, when it turns out that he was paid over $65,000 in funds from his federal account, of which $47,000 was described as salary.

Salaries paid to federal candidates are legal under federal campaign finance law, but state campaign finance law prohibits them. Just what is Lollar being reimbursed for?

--Brian Griffiths is a co-founder and contributing editor for Red Maryland, which has strived to be the premier blog and radio network of conservative and Republican politics and ideas in the free state since 2007. He is chairman of the Maryland Young Republicans. and has worked on and advised numerous local, state and federal campaigns. His Red Maryland posts appear here regularly.

Copyright © 2015, The Baltimore Sun
Related Content
  • Restoring people's faith in government

    Restoring people's faith in government

    In Maryland and across the country, Americans are growing deeply cynical about Washington. And for good reason. They perceive that policymaking is increasingly an insider's game, with little role for the public itself. They feel that their voices go unheard in Congress. And they see, time and time...

  • Md.'s arbitrary campaign finance laws [Editorial]

    Md.'s arbitrary campaign finance laws [Editorial]

    Our view: Rules about who can raise money during the legislative session and who can't expose the hollowness at the core of Md. campaign finance law

  • A vote for campaign finance reform [Letter]

    A vote for campaign finance reform [Letter]

    I recently read the "Campaign reform in action" (Feb. 5) editorial endorsing public financing of political campaigns, and I could not agree more. As a young person and relatively new voter, contending with the post-Citizens United election system is disheartening.

  • Four years after Citizens United [Commentary]

    Four years after Citizens United [Commentary]

    The Supreme Court decision opened the floodgates for big money to overtake our elections

  • The reality of term limits [Editorial]

    The reality of term limits [Editorial]

    Our view: Restricting how long Maryland's delegates and senators can serve in office may sound attractive, but the reality is likely to disappoint

  • Legalized bribery [Letter]

    What do four articles ("Two campaigns asked to halt fundraising during assembly," Dec. 30, "Gansler recused himself from election ruling," Dec. 22, "Campaign ruling prompts lawsuit," Dec. 27 and "A lawyer who knows fundraising," Dec. 29), plus one editorial ("Arbitrary, ineffective," Dec. 23),...

Comments
Loading

86°