NOW THAT Gov.-elect Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. has established himself as the premier fund-raiser in state history, the Democrats who control the General Assembly might have good reason to reconsider campaign finance reforms they have traditionally scorned.
It could be a matter of political survival.
The recent election showed that Ehrlich's finance wizards knew the loopholes in the law and were not shy about using them. The governor-elect's determination to build the state Republican Party is unquestioned, and his money machine is poised to pump money into challenges to incumbent Democrats in 2006.
In addition to self-preservation, Democrats also might find compelling partisan reasons to press for some modest limits on fund raising. Ehrlich, who has never shown any particular zeal for campaign finance curbs, won election on a vow to clean up the "culture of corruption" in Annapolis. By putting reform legislation on his desk, Democrats could call his bluff, though that would risk some of their own revenue sources.
Campaign reform advocates say the most glaring weakness in state election law is a provision that allows the use of "slates" to move large sums of money between politicians. But that dodge has powerful protectors who benefit from the system. It's much more likely that lawmakers would consider less ambitious changes.
These are three pieces of lower-hanging fruit: gaping loopholes that were exploited in this year's election. All are likely to come up in next year's session.
Loophole No. 1: The developer's dodge
Current law imposes a $4,000 limit on the amount one person or business may contribute to a single campaign in a single four year-election cycle. Givers also are restricted to donating $10,000 to all state candidates over the same period.
This loophole lets businessmen - mostly developers - pour tens of thousands of dollars into campaigns without technically violating the law's limits.
The loophole treats each business controlled by one person as a separate entity as long as the ownership is even slightly different from another in which the same individual is the controlling interest. Developers typically set up separate limited liability corporations for each of their projects, and tend to control more such businesses than anybody else.
Thus, developers such as Kingdon Gould Jr. and Francis Day could write checks to Ehrlich totaling more than $40,000 each by contributing $4,000 through multiple partnerships. It was a provision Ehrlich's people exploited unapologetically, noting that they were adhering to the letter of the law.
The loophole could be patched with a relatively modest measure applying the current limits to all businesses in which an individual holds a controlling interest. Del. Elizabeth Bobo proposed such a bill three years ago only to see it die in the Senate. The Howard County Democrat said she plans to bring it back this year.
Before rejecting the idea again, Democratic legislators might want to consider who has the inside track in fund raising among developers and builders. (Hint: Check out the fund-raising reports of Ehrlich and running mate Michael S. Steele.)
Loophole No. 2: The last-minute ambush
Defeated Sen. Barbara A. Hoffman was chairwoman of the powerful Budget and Taxation Committee and a reliably liberal, generally pro-labor Democrat.
In 1999, in the last minutes of the legislative session, opponents of a bill granting collective bargaining rights to employees of the state university system were staging a filibuster. The Senate Democratic leadership, pushed by Gov. Parris N. Glendening and lobbyists for the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), needed votes to cut off debate.
When the cloture vote came, AFSCME received a rude surprise. There among the red no votes on the board - along with the chamber's Republicans - was that of Hoffman. AFSCME had to wait two more years before winning university collective bargaining rights.
This year, Hoffman aggravated AFSCME again as her committee declined to provide money for raises in a collective bargaining deal the union negotiated with the Glendening administration.
So AFSCME got even.
Hoffman, a white woman redrawn into a primarily African-American district, was in the home stretch of a primary race against Del. Lisa A. Gladden, who is African-American. Despite the demographic tilt of the district, polls showed Hoffman in a close race weeks before the Sept. 10 primary.
But after Aug. 25, the final day on which contributions received by the campaigns would have to be reported before the election, AFSCME struck. Between Aug. 30 and Sept. 9, AFSCME units from seven states each gave $4,000 to Gladden- $28,000 in all.
Hoffman said she had heard AFSCME was planning to oppose her but had no idea how much the union had pumped into her opponent's campaign. Gladden won, 49 percent to 43 percent.
"It's clearly an attempt to affect the outcome of the election - and it did," Hoffman said.
Federal law makes it difficult to blindside a candidate by requiring disclosure of large donations made after the reporting deadline within 48 hours.
Incumbent legislators, particularly those in leadership positions, can be especially vulnerable to late attacks because they have to make tough decisions that infuriate powerful interest groups.
James Browning, executive director of Common/Cause Maryland, said he hopes to find a sponsor for a bill that would adopt the federal notice requirement. Incumbent lawmakers won't get many better chances to be reformers while protecting their own hides.
Loophole No. 3: The concealed special interest
Del. Howard P. Rawlings, chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, has some admirers in Arizona.
Between July and September, Paul Tuft, Lori Coffey, Steven Dietlin and Melvin and Vicki Redman each contributed $4,000 - $20,000 total - to the Baltimore Democrat's campaign this summer.
What do the Arizonans care about a legislative race in Maryland? They are all officers or spouses of officers in Doctors Community Health Corp. The company, now bankrupt, was interested this year in acquiring two Prince George's County hospitals owned by Dimensions Healthcare System.
Rawlings said he introduced Tuft to members of the Prince George's County delegation but did nothing to advance the company's legislation. He said the contributions were the result of gratitude that he introduced Tuft to a Johns Hopkins vice president the company hired as a top executive.
"I complied with the statute as it exists," said Rawlings, noting accurately that the gifts were legal and properly reported.
Under federal law, the givers' common interests would have been readily apparent because campaigns are required to list the employer and occupation of contributors. Maryland legislators have repeatedly rejected such proposals.
Democrats who have balked at those bills might want to consider which Maryland politician is now best situated to raise $20,000 or more at a pop from the officials of a single corporation.