End the Money Chase

A chance for Montgomery County to elect lawmakers unbeholden to special interests

PUBLIC FINANCING of elections has been a tough sell in most states, in no small part because so many elected officials are loath to wean themselves from the reliable election-year bounty that flows from deep-pocketed interest groups. Maryland is no exception, having squashed attempts at minimizing the influence of Annapolis lobbyists by rejecting bills to establish a voluntary system of public financing for candidates for the state legislature. But there is a chance that the state, having lacked the nerve to enact public financing of elections itself, may give Montgomery County the chance to do so for its own local elections. Thus would the county be able to strike a blow for cleaner elections that the state has spurned.

Legislation that could do just that is under consideration by Montgomery's delegation to the House of Delegates. The bill, which would grant the county the power to draft its own legislation, would apply only to races for county executive and the nine seats on the County Council, but that's not small potatoes. The county, whose nearly 1 million residents make it a good deal bigger than a congressional district, has seen the cost of local elections skyrocket; the two major candidates for county executive in 2006 together spent around $3 million, and most candidates for the council spent well over $100,000 and in some cases more than $200,000.

As in many such local races, developers and public employees unions contributed heavily to their favorite candidates, leaving some successful candidates indebted or beholden to them in office. It's no coincidence that the county has been overly generous in the contracts it has negotiated with teachers, firefighters and other unions, since those are the very interest groups that have lined the pockets of politicians at election time. The county is now paying the price in the form of bulging deficits that will have to be slashed in coming budget cycles.

A voluntary public financing system that would set overall spending limits and match small individual donations would nudge elected officials to be more independent and accountable to the broad electorate and less obliged to special interests. Any candidate who wanted to exceed the spending limits could opt out. Those who accepted the limits would probably face a threshold to be eligible for public matching funds -- say, candidates who could raise at least $10,000 from donations of $100 or less. That would also bar fringe candidates from receiving public money. And while the system might cost a couple of million dollars, it could very well also save money ultimately by promoting candidates with that rarest of political talents: the ability to say no.