Advertisement
HomeCollectionsCampaign Spending
IN THE NEWS

Campaign Spending

FEATURED ARTICLES
NEWS
By John Fritze, The Baltimore Sun | July 3, 2013
A 28-year-old Marine veteran who announced this week he is running in Maryland's 6th Congressional District is calling on the well-financed Democratic incumbent in that district to limit campaign spending to $500,000. David E. Vogt III of Brunswick is seeking to reclaim for Republicans the district Democratic Rep. John Delaney won last year by beating longtime GOP incumbent Roscoe G. Bartlett. Vogt, now a full-time graduate student, has not previously run for political office. Delaney spent $4.1 million in his campaign last year -- roughly half of it his own money.
ARTICLES BY DATE
NEWS
By Jules Witcover | April 7, 2014
Forty years ago, Congress enacted sweeping limits on political campaign spending in the wake of a shocking disclosure that one man - Chicago insurance executive W. Clement Stone - had given more than $3 million for the 1972 reelection of President Richard M. Nixon. The amount seemed outlandish then, in a campaign in which Nixon waltzed to victory over his Democratic opponent, Sen. George McGovern, winning 49 states and losing only Massachusetts and the District of Columbia. It was an easily predictable drubbing.
Advertisement
NEWS
By Jon Morgan and Jon Morgan,Evening Sun Staff | February 5, 1991
After failed attempts in recent years, the General Assembly may finally be ready to impose a limit on PAC contributions and curb campaign spending by lobbyists.Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller Jr. and House Speaker R. Clayton Mitchell Jr. unveiled a package of bills yesterday that would mandate the changes and force more public disclosure of campaign spending.One legislative source said some senators and delegates have expressed reservations about the proposals. But the backing of Mitchell and Miller seems to give the measures a better than average chance of passage.
NEWS
By John Fritze, The Baltimore Sun | July 3, 2013
A 28-year-old Marine veteran who announced this week he is running in Maryland's 6th Congressional District is calling on the well-financed Democratic incumbent in that district to limit campaign spending to $500,000. David E. Vogt III of Brunswick is seeking to reclaim for Republicans the district Democratic Rep. John Delaney won last year by beating longtime GOP incumbent Roscoe G. Bartlett. Vogt, now a full-time graduate student, has not previously run for political office. Delaney spent $4.1 million in his campaign last year -- roughly half of it his own money.
NEWS
By DAVID G. SAVAGE and DAVID G. SAVAGE,LOS ANGELES TIMES | September 28, 2005
WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court agreed yesterday to reconsider the free-speech rule that allows candidates to spend unlimited money to win election to public office. The campaign finance case is among 11 the justices agreed to take up after meeting behind closed doors Monday to go over more than 1,700 appeals that have awaited action since June. They include an Ohio case that tests whether states can offer huge tax breaks to corporations to lure them to build plants. Last year, a U.S. appeals court said these special tax breaks are unconstitutional.
NEWS
By Kerry O'Rourke and Kerry O'Rourke,Sun Staff Writer | August 14, 1994
Carroll County commissioner candidates should limit their campaign spending in order to focus on issues instead of yard signs and advertisements, Democrat Cornelius M. "Neil" Ridgely said last week.Mr. Ridgely of Finksburg has proposed that he and other candidates in the commissioner race spend no more than $10,000 in the primary and general elections.But some of the other candidates said they are against any spending limits, and one said a policy should have been established before the race began.
NEWS
By DAVID G. SAVAGE and DAVID G. SAVAGE,LOS ANGELES TIMES | June 27, 2006
WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court dealt a defeat yesterday to liberal reformers who sought to sharply limit the impact of money in politics. In a 6-3 decision, the court struck down a novel Vermont law that would have strictly limited how much state candidates can spend on their campaigns, as well as how much donors can give them. Had the law been upheld, these reformers saw it as a model for other states to limit campaign spending. Instead, the justices said the law violated the First Amendment and its guarantee of freedom of speech.
NEWS
By Lyle Denniston and Lyle Denniston,SUN NATIONAL STAFF Sun staff writer Jules Witcover contributed to this article | June 27, 1996
WASHINGTON -- Freeing political parties to promote their congressional candidates and attack their opponents, the Supreme Court ruled yesterday that it is unconstitutional to curb a party's spending to get out the vote for its candidates.The court was widely splintered in the ruling. The result could be determined only by counting the votes for three separate opinions, none speaking for a majority of five.In the end, by a vote of 7-2, the court ruled that Congress had no constitutional power to limit "independent" expenditures by political parties during congressional campaigns.
NEWS
By Lyle Denniston and Lyle Denniston,SUN NATIONAL STAFF | March 2, 1999
WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court, long opposed to mandatory campaign spending caps, cleared the way yesterday for states to use generous public subsidies to entice candidates to accept voluntary limits and to pressure candidates who refuse to agree to limits.A Kentucky public financing scheme that goes further than most states have gone withstood a constitutional challenge when the court, without comment, turned down two appeals on the issue.The Supreme Court ruled 23 years ago that it is unconstitutional to impose a direct spending limit on political candidates, prompting states to look for indirect means to curb campaign outlays.
NEWS
By Jules Witcover | May 22, 2012
Maybe what this country needs on the Supreme Court is a real politician or at least a sensible political scientist or two. Perhaps they would help the court's majority understand how it has allowed unlimited big-donor money to contaminate and almost destroy our politics. The infamous Citizens United decision -- which permits corporations and individuals to flood election campaigns with torrents of cash through super PACs as long as they are independent of candidates' formal organizations -- has invited some of the worst abuses of negative campaigning.
NEWS
By Michael Dresser, The Baltimore Sun | December 3, 2012
Penn National Gaming was a $44 million loser in its bid to block expanded gambling in last month's election, but it came out on top in terms of its spending locally. Get the Facts - Vote No on 7, the Pennsylvania-based casino company's ballot committee, spent almost three-quarters of its money in Maryland in Maryland's most expensive campaign ever. Penn National and a rival coalition led by MGM Entertainment together spent almost $95 million in the fight over Question 7, which opened the way for table games and a new casino in Prince George's County.
NEWS
October 16, 2012
Sen. Brian Frosh's comment that the $40 million raised so far by gambling interests in Maryland for the casino referendum constitutes "wretched excess" is incredibly naive ("Record $40 million raised for and against gambling referendum," Oct. 13). The amount of spending merely underlines that funding for all political campaigns will continue to escalate commensurate with the expansion and intrusion of the government at the federal and state level, as will corruption and crony capitalism, I might add. It is the natural state of affairs, and it is a bipartisan phenomenon.
NEWS
By Annie Linskey, The Baltimore Sun | September 4, 2012
Gambling giant Penn National Gaming Inc. has spent $5.5 million to limit gambling in Maryland — the latest move in a casino-vs.-casino battle that could saturate the airwaves and overwhelm other ballot initiatives this fall. The Penn National spending came days after MGM Resorts Inc. put $2.4 million into a campaign to support an expansion of gambling. MGM plans to debut its second pro-gambling television commercial Wednesday. The spending brings the total committed on both sides to $7.9 million, a stunning figure given that referendum campaigns are just beginning.
NEWS
By Jules Witcover | May 22, 2012
Maybe what this country needs on the Supreme Court is a real politician or at least a sensible political scientist or two. Perhaps they would help the court's majority understand how it has allowed unlimited big-donor money to contaminate and almost destroy our politics. The infamous Citizens United decision -- which permits corporations and individuals to flood election campaigns with torrents of cash through super PACs as long as they are independent of candidates' formal organizations -- has invited some of the worst abuses of negative campaigning.
NEWS
By Annie Linskey, The Baltimore Sun | April 18, 2011
The longtime treasurer to state Sen. Ulysses Currie sobbed in court Monday after an Anne Arundel County judge sentenced her to a year in jail for stealing more than $166,000 in campaign donations. Olivia Harris, 65, pleaded guilty to theft in February. Before she was sentenced, she asked the judge for leniency. "I'd like to apologize and say how sorry I am," she said. "I have, for all of my life, been an upstanding citizen. ... I'm remorseful for what I did. " State prosecutors opened a probe into Currie's campaign spending after a Baltimore Sun article raised questions about payments he made to a private law firm to defend him during a federal bribery investigation.
NEWS
September 20, 2010
Now that the primaries are over, here comes the big money. Freed by a Supreme Court ruling that allows corporations to use their own cash to pay for campaign ads, Republican leaning groups are mounting impressive fund raising efforts to support their candidates in this fall's congressional elections, matching and likely exceeding Democrats' traditional sources of cash. But unlike the unions and moveon.orgs that have fueled campaign spending in the past, the new players in the world of campaign finance can directly advocate for the victory or defeat of a candidate without identifying themselves or the sources of their money.
NEWS
BY A SUN STAFF WRITER | July 8, 1998
Howard County Executive Charles I. Ecker has filed with the state election board to use public campaign financing, making him the only gubernatorial candidate to indicate he might take advantage of the funding.Ecker, who is challenging Ellen R. Sauerbrey in the Republican primary, was the only candidate to file his intention by the Monday night deadline. He now has until July 16 to file paperwork proving he qualifies for matching public funds of up to about $770,000 for the primary."We'll see," he said.
NEWS
By JACK GERMOND & JULES WITCOVER | August 11, 1993
WASHINGTON -- The Federal Election Commission, the governmental watchdog on campaign spending, has awakened from its institutional slumber to bite yet another candidate -- Senate Minority Leader Bob Dole -- but the teeth marks have barely broken the skin.The FEC has fined, and Dole's 1988 presidential campaign has agreed to pay, a civil penalty of $100,000 -- the largest ever levied -- for having "knowingly accepted" $64,043 in illegal corporate campaign contributions. It has also ordered the campaign to repay another $104,564 in funds from individuals and corporations that either were illegal or in excess of legal payments.
NEWS
By Annie Linskey, The Baltimore Sun and Baltimore Sun reporter | September 1, 2010
A federal grand jury in Maryland has charged the chairman of the Senate's powerful budget panel and two former supermarket executives with bribery, extortion and other criminal offenses in an 18-count indictment. In announcing the charges Wednesday, prosecutors said Sen. Ulysses Currie, a Democrat, had misused his influence for personal gain while helping Shoppers Food Warehouse expand in Maryland. "Government officials cross a bright line when they accept payments in return for using the authority of their office, whether they take cash in envelopes or checks labeled as consulting payments," U.S. Attorney Rod J. Rosenstein said in a statement.
NEWS
By Charlie Cooper | August 26, 2010
"The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic State itself. " — FDR The corporate stranglehold on media, elections and congressional bill-drafting has locked our economy into obsolete and unproductive channels. Corporate influence has even led the Supreme Court to rule this year that corporations are "persons" with "rights. " The court's bizarre logic shows just how precarious our democracy and our economy have become.
Baltimore Sun Articles
|
|
|
Please note the green-lined linked article text has been applied commercially without any involvement from our newsroom editors, reporters or any other editorial staff.