Here in Baltimore we have a GLOBAL BANKING 1% BALTIMORE COMMITTEE filled with 5% freemason/Greek players all working to MOVE FORWARD ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE for only the global 1%. These members are tied to our UNIVERSITIES which should be fighting for our US sovereignty and sovereign rights----members include global corporations now controlling what were our Baltimore public agencies -----members include our Baltimore LAW SCHOOLS which should be front and center in all US sovereignty and citizens' sovereign rights issues.
FIXING US ELECTIONS IS EASY PEASY. WE SIMPLY NEED TO RETURN TO REAL PUBLIC FORUMS OPEN AND FREE DISCUSSIONS THROUGHOUT ELECTION SEASON. WE NEED TO ENFORCE THE ABOVE FCC ELECTION LAW AND OUR 99% MUST STOP ALLOWING PAID CAMPAIGNS WIN OUR VOTE.
Global banking 1% of course want our US 99% to pay MORE taxes for these policies----when revenue simply needs to come from existing tax base.
GOVERNING is a far-right wing global banking 1% media outlet-----not interested in US sovereign civil policies.
The New Strategy for Limiting Money's Role in Elections
The dream of eliminating the influence of large, private donors from the election equation is pretty much dead.
Now campaign finance reformers are shifting their focus.
by Alan Greenblatt | August 31, 2017 GOVERNING
The goals behind the public financing of elections have shifted. The old dream of completely eliminating big, private money from politics has been dashed by Citizens United and other court rulings.
OH, REALLY???? CITIZENS UNITED WAS AN ILLEGAL AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL RULING BY US SUPREME COURT. WE SIMPLY NEED TO VOID IT.
"It's probably not a realistic goal in any case," says Michael Malbin, executive director of the Campaign Finance Institute. "People who are interested in politics have many ways of influencing the political system."
Now, the hope among some advocates of publicly financed campaigns is to impose limits on the size and scope of campaign treasuries while increasing citizen involvement. To do that, reformers are promoting the use of matching funds and so-called democracy vouchers, which allow citizens to steer government money directly to the candidates of their choice.
"Advocates see these as a way to circumvent the more nefarious consequences of the Citizens United decision," says Michael G. Miller, a political scientist at Barnard College and author of Subsidizing Democracy: How Public Funding Changes Elections, and How It Can Work in the Future.
The Brennan Center for Justice and Democracy 21 have unveiled a proposal to create matching funds that would greatly amplify small donations to congressional races. If an individual gave $100 to a qualifying candidate, that candidate would also receive $500 in public, taxpayer funds.
"Candidates will have every reason to reach out to donors of modest means instead of exclusively focusing their attention on the kind of fat-cat donors who currently dominate our campaigns," says Adam Skaggs, senior counsel for the Brennan Center.
Matching fund programs are already in place for local elections in jurisdictions such as New York, Los Angeles and Montgomery County, Md. Such programs have increased interest and participation in local races, says Malbin.
HMMMM, THE MOST FRAUDULENT AND RIGGED US ELECTION REGIONS USING FAKE ELECTION BONES TO KEEP US ELECTIONS CORRUPT.
"People looking to increase the role of small donors are interested in participation because it's good in and of itself, and people will get more power if they're invested in the political system," Malbin says. "It's got to be about having donors put skin in the game."
In addition to matching funds, reformers are promoting the idea of democracy vouchers. Seattle voters approved such a plan in 2015, giving voters $100 worth of $25 vouchers to donate to the candidates of their choice. Vouchers are being used this fall for city council and city attorney races and will expand to mayoral elections starting in 2021.
WONDER IF SEATTLE'S ELECTION REFERENDUM BALLOTING IS AS RIGGED AS BALTIMORE'S?
Conservatives have always been skeptical about public financing, viewing subsidies as a form of needless welfare for politicians. Public financing forces taxpayers to underwrite candidates whose views they may find intolerable, says Brian Balfour, executive vice president of the Civitas Institute, a free market think tank in North Carolina.
"There's a moral argument against compelling people to pay for the speech of others, oftentimes candidates with whom they disagree," he says.
THAT'S WHY THE US USED TOOK ALL PRIVATE CORPORATIONS OUT OF OUR US ELECTIONS ----FREE MARKET DOES NOT ALLOW THESE BIASED APPROACHES. SIMPLY USING EXISTING TAX BASE TO CREATE OPEN TO ALL CANDIDATE PUBLIC FORUMS----PRINTED PUBLIC ELECTION LITERATURE-----VOILA---FREE-MARKET LEFT INTACT.
Last week, Florida state House Speaker Richard Corcoran, a likely GOP candidate for governor next year, called for ending his state's system of public financing.
"You really have to be clueless or just plain selfish to accept money from our state coffers that could go to our schoolchildren, first responders or be put back in the pockets of our taxpayers," Corcoran said.
He called on the state's Constitutional Revision Commission to put the matter before voters in 2018. But they already rejected an attempt to eliminate public campaign funding back in 2010.
The other major criticism that's long been lodged against public financing programs is that they don't actually keep large donors from having an outsized influence in politics. Even in states where public financing is readily available, some candidates in competitive races know they can raise more money in the private market. Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey, for example, raised $2.4 million for his campaign in 2014, which was double the amount that would have been allowed under the state's public financing program.
Nonetheless, voters seem to like the idea of public financing.
DO US VOTERS LIKE THIS IDEA OR ARE CORPORATE POLLING AND FAKE VOTING RIGHTS NGOS PRETENDING THIS IS GOOD ELECTION POLICY? WE DON'T WANT PUBLIC FINANCING OF CANDIDATES---WE WANT PUBLIC FINANCING OF ELECTION FORUMS AND PUBLIC SPACE.
Last November, South Dakota voters approved a democracy voucher program as part of an ethics package. (The package, however was subsequently blocked by the legislature this year.) In 2015, Maine voters approved an increase in funding for the state's so-called clean elections system.
"There's something attractive about people running for office without taking any money from special interests," says Miller.
Before Maine voters increased funding for public campaign financing, the share of state legislative candidates who participated in the clean elections program had plummeted from 81 percent in 2008 to 53 percent in 2014. Last year, participation rebounded to 64 percent, and five candidates in next year's race for governor have already said they'll use that option.
"Most candidates are pretty satisfied with the program," says Anna Kellar, program director for Maine Citizens for Clean Elections. "We did a survey after the election, and almost everyone thought they had enough money."
IF THE FRAUD AND ELECTION RIGGING IS OCCURRING AT ELECTRONIC BALLOT MACHINES DONE BY GLOBAL BANKING 5% PLAYERS/POLS---HOW DOES THIS HELP CLEAN ELECTIONS?
Kellar and other campaign finance advocates say that providing public funds not only allows but forces candidates to spend more time talking with voters. In order to qualify for public funding in Maine, candidates have to demonstrate community support by collecting a minimum number of $5 contributions (60 for state House candidates, 175 for state Senate candidates).
"They have to get $5 checks," Kellar says, "so that rewards the candidates who are doing retail politics."
The rules are similar in Seattle.
There, candidates who wish to collect democracy vouchers also have to collect some seed money from voters. To qualify, council candidates have to collect 400 signatures and 400 contributions of $10 each. The signatures and the money have to come from the same 400 people -- a stipulation that some candidates say creates a logistical hurdle.
An arguably bigger problem that public funding could create, though, is one that Hisam Goueli had: For his city council campaign, he received nearly $20,000 through the democracy voucher program. But, the money arrived the day before the August primary -- too late to do him any good.
He ended up losing.
Maybe the kinks in the system will be worked out after it's been tried a few times, with money sent out in time to be effective. But Goueli also complains that only candidates who already have strong organizational backing can take full advantage of the program because of the high demands of collecting qualifying signatures.
THERE WE HAVE IT----INDEED, YET ANOTHER BIASED AND SKEWED ELECTION REFORM POLICY.
That seems to run counter to the promise the program held, which was to level the playing field for candidates who may lack deep-pocketed support. The Seattle program has also been challenged in court and police are investigating an alleged case of fraud, in which a candidate is accused of fabricating individual donations in order to receive funding through the voucher system.
The underlying question is whether vouchers or matching funds can succeed in limiting the influence of big donors.
The U.S. Supreme Court's 2010 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission struck down limits on the amount corporations, unions or individuals could spend independently on campaigns, helping open the floodgates to super PACs with unlimited funds. The following year, the Supreme Court in McComish v. Bennett struck down "trigger funds" that increased public funding for candidates up against free-spending opponents.
THIS WAS AN ILLEGAL US SUPREME COURT RULING IGNORING OUR 300 YEARS OF COMMON LAW COURT RULING PRECEDENCE-----ANY REAL VOTER RIGHTS GROUP WOULD KEEP MAKING THAT CASE. AS WELL, TODAY'S US SUPREME COURT ALL APPOINTED BY NATIONAL POLITICIANS ALL TIED TO BEING ROBBER BARON CRIMINAL AND CORRUPT POLITICIANS....NO APPOINTMENT POWER WITH CRIMINAL POLITICIANS IN AMERICA.
Last year, super PACs spent more than $1 billion on elections, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
This is a DAVOS SWITZERLAND global 1% OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS' policy to pretend the US election system they corrupted and criminalized is addressing 99% of citizens having no voice. We see all those global banking 5% freemason/Greek player/pols hawking this latest far-right wing global banking 1% policy.
Candidates do not need money to run for office. They need to show up to public forums staged throughout the election season----spend the whole day allowing our 99% of citizens to come and go openly asking any question with the candidate having all the time in the world to discuss platform talking points. No money needed folks! The candidate simply needs transportation to various PUBLIC EVENTS.
Now, our major newspapers and TV/RADIO always had an OPINION PIECE where that media manager gave its view on candidates----
PLEASE STOP LISTENING TO ALL THAT PAID CAMPAIGN MEDIA ---IF A CANDIDATE IS PLAYING INSIDE THIS CORRUPTED SYSTEM THEY ARE NOT WORKING FOR YOU AND ME.
Could public funding of elections revolutionize politics?
Our campaign finance system is clearly broken. A new local law in D.C. could be the tip of a promising iceberg
February 20, 2018 2:00pm (UTC)
Raising money for a high-profile political race is not the panacea it once was in the early days of televised campaign advertising. Just ask former Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton, who outraised future-president Donald Trump by a margin of $564 million to $333 million -- or Jon Ossoff, the failed Georgia Democratic congressional candidate who brought in $23 million more than his opponent but still came up short.
But most political races do not attract much public notice. That's especially true at the municipal level, where both voting and contribution rates are far lower. In such races, advertising is even more important because people will not support candidates they do not know. (That was even true of then-senator Barack Obama, who actually trailed Clinton throughout most of 2007 among black voters.)
For local races, the net effect of having such low levels of participation is that a small number of wealthy organizations and individuals are often able to skew politics in their direction. Republicans certainly proved this through the wildly successful REDMAP program, which enabled them to effectively purchase control of hundreds of state legislature seats that Democrats mostly ignored during the politically disastrous Obama years.
At the municipal level, where attracting donations and attention is even more difficult, government employees have managed to attain significant clout thanks to their well-funded treasuries and willingness to bloc-vote.
At the same time, local races (even in highly progressive metro areas) are often influenced by out-of-town real estate developers and others who are more interested in tax subsidies than in improving services for communities. People who don't have such connections very often get left out, particularly would-be candidates who are not wealthy or not already involved in government.
"We did some research and we saw that a large portion of the money coming into campaign coffers was from real estate developers, many of whom were not even residents," Val Ervin, a senior adviser at the Working Families Party, told Salon in an interview.
In an effort to bring new candidates and re-energize local politics, the WFP has been working to promote the public funding of elections in municipal races. The group's efforts succeeded last week when the city council in Washington, D.C., voted unanimously to establish a new public campaign finance program.
The proposed Washington system would require candidates to raise a minimum amount of money, after which they will receive a base amount and then five-to-one matching funds.
"The base grant is a lump sum of money, and it is key to ensuring that candidates who may not be individually wealthy or well-connected have setup money to begin a viable campaign," said Nolan Treadway, the communications director for D.C. Councilmember Kenyan McDuffie.
In addition to making it easier for lesser-known and under-financed candidates to have a chance, the much lower limits (a maximum donation of $200 per person) and the matching funds are designed to help candidates get out into the community and interact with voters.
"I think everybody acknowledges that campaigns cost money, but when a candidate has to spend the majority of their time fundraising, sitting in a room calling people who can write big checks instead of talking to residents, then they're not spending their time where they need to," Councilmember Charles Allen said. "I would much rather spend that time talking with residents."
Although this proposal was passed unanimously by the council, Washington Mayor Muriel Bowser has indicated that she sees the public funding proposal as a waste of money. Bowser has not commented on the proposal since it passed the council, but her representatives referred The Washington Post to her earlier remarks that the idea would result in less money for "pressing needs for residents."
LOOKS LIKE BOWSER WOULD NOT LIKE OUR RETURN TO REAL PUBLIC FORUM AND PUBLIC SPACE ELECTION FUNDING EITHER.
While the estimated $5 million that the program would cost would have to come from the city's general operating fund, the amount is minimal compared to D.C.'s $13.8 billion annual budget.
The fact that Bowser might be ambivalent or hostile toward the idea is not exactly a surprise. She was able to raise $3.6 million during her 2014 mayoral run and faces no prominent challengers in her 2018 re-election bid.
WELL, SHE IS A FAR-RIGHT WING GLOBAL BANKING 1% MAKING THE RICH RICHER PROGRESSIVE----NOT A LEFT DEMOCRAT.
Bowser's success at raising money reveals a potential flaw of the system, since candidates are not obligated to use public funds. So a publicly funded challenger to Bowser would only receive a $150,000 base grant, nowhere near what would be needed to mount a full-scale campaign.
The proposed D.C. law shares similarities with laws enacted by Wisconsin and Minnesota that only provide partial funding to candidates. In contrast, systems implemented in Arizona, Maine and Connecticut have been billed as "clean election" plans because they only require candidates to raise a small amount via low-dollar donations in order to qualify for a much larger amount from the government. Candidates who opt-in to the system cannot receive private contributions after doing so.
Since public funding of elections is still relatively new -- except at the level of the presidential general election, where it's been in place since 1976 -- political scientists have not yet come to a consensus on its effects.
A few trends have emerged from the nascent research, however. According to Michael G. Miller of Barnard College, while partial public funding can encourage new candidates, it appears to have no effect during general elections, compared to states that have traditional private donation systems. Miller's research on different states also found that public matching systems can easily be manipulated by incumbent politicians.
Another paper written by Andrew B. Hall, now a professor of political science at Stanford, shows that public funding of elections seems to make it harder for incumbents to win re-election. According to Hall, "public funding decreases the electoral incumbency advantage by as much as 8.19 percentage points."
Hall's study, which does not distinguish between partial and full public funding, also found that the ideological position of state legislators also varied under public financing systems. Localities that allow candidates to have their campaigns funded by the public were found to shift ideologically toward the left, but with the curious side effect of producing a small number of far-right conservative candidates.
It's too early to say whether public financing of elections will have a major impact on the ailing state of our democracy, but it seems clear that various cities, counties and states are eager to find out.
Here we have a photo with two our our Baltimore City Council members both being raging far-right wing global banking 1% OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS----tied to all that is criminal and corrupt in the city PRETENDING they are trying to FIX BALTIMORE ELECTION corruption. We are told the problem with our US elections is all that OUTSIDE MONEY FROM RICH AND CORPORATIONS----when of course that is not what is the matter with our US elections. So, national FAKE VOTING RIGHTS groups are now pushing yet ANOTHER plan to address the criminality in our elections by this PUBLIC FINANCING of candidates. Let's remember the real problems-----
300 years of US elections had Federal, state, and local governments using taxpayer money to fund a system of public forums with campaign literature printed for free to a point------all was standardized-----none of it was tied to LOCAL MEDIA----local NGOs ----these forums were held in public libraries---public K-12 schools---public universities all of which had leadership bound to US RULE OF LAW and protecting CITIZENS' rights. We understand rights to vote and run for office was a gradual process-----
IF POLITICAL COMMITTEES ARE CORRUPT-----IF POLITICAL PLATFORMS ARE CORRUPT-----IF METHODS OF PUBLIC FORUM ARE 1-2 MINUTES AND YOU ARE OUT----WE HAVE LOST WHAT GAVE AMERICA REAL FREE AND FAIR ELECTIONS.
Baltimore City Council to consider public financing of city elections
Ian DuncanContact Reporter
The Baltimore Sun APR 23, 2018
In an attempt to diminish the influence of wealthy political donors and force candidates to spend more time talking to voters, a Baltimore City Council member introduced legislation Monday to establish a system of public financing for city campaigns.
Councilman Kristerfer Burnett’s charter amendment bill is the first step toward creating a fund that would provide matching public funds for money individual donors contribute to candidates.
If the bill is approved by the council, voters would be asked in November whether to change the city charter to allow for public financing and to create an 11-member commission to oversee the public money available for candidates.
OH, YEAH---THAT'S WHAT BALTIMORE NEEDS, ANOTHER COMMISSION FILLED WITH GLOBAL BANKING 5% FREEMASON/GREEK PLAYERS TO OVERSEE ANOTHER VOTER STRUCTURE.
Burnett said he hopes public financing would change how candidates run their campaigns, allowing more time for community interaction and less effort for fundraising.
“The thinking behind it is to really help candidates run campaigns that are focused on engaging with voters and hearing their ideas,” he said.
Under the bill, only candidates who agree to accept individual donations of less than $150 would be eligible for matching funds from the city. Individuals currently can contribute up to $6,000 to a local political campaign.
The proposal would offer qualifying candidates some multiple of an individual’s donation. Supporters propose that donations of up to $25 would be boosted seven times — so a $10 donation would draw $70 in public funds. The multipliers would diminish as donations increase in size.
Supporters say making public money available to candidates would diminish the power of rich donors, interest groups and labor unions. And by boosting small contributions, supporters of the idea hope to make giving to campaigns more appealing to lower-income residents.
The bill — co-sponsored by eight other council members — calls for establishing a revenue source for the proposed “Fair Election Fund” through an annual budgeted allocation, dedicating certain fines, fees and surcharges, and grants or donations.
The council would have to consider another piece of legislation to make funds available. That legislation is expected to be introduced in coming weeks.
Burnett, who won office for the first time in 2016, said he struggled at first to raise money and didn’t know many people who could make those maximum contributions. As his campaign became more competitive toward Election Day, Burnett said, he spent more time raising money.
The cost of running for election in Baltimore spiked in the 2016 election. Candidates for mayor spent $9 million, up from a more typical total of about $3 million, with the victor, Mayor Catherine Pugh, spending more than $2 million.
Montgomery County enacted a similar public financing system in 2014. It is being used for the first time in elections there this year.
To qualify for matching funds in Montgomery County, county executive candidates must not accept more than $150 from individual donors and they have to raise $40,000 from at least 500 donors. They can then receive up to $6 for each dollar they raise privately.
County council candidates must raise $10,000 from at least 125 people to qualify to receive up to $4 in public funds for every dollar they raise
State election records show 40 Montgomery County candidates have signed up to use the system to finance their campaigns.
If the City Council approves a fund in Baltimore, public money would become available to candidates starting in 2024.
This is great=======indeed exactly what AFFORDABLE CARE ACT had as a goal.
Just about all of our US 99% WE THE PEOPLE understand the politicians in office are criminal and our local political machines and committees are filled with those criminal and corrupt global banking 5% freemason/Greek players.
OF COURSE OUR US ELECTIONS ARE FRAUDULENT AND RIGGED.
So, GET OUT THE VOTE------VOTER RIGHTS------BILL OF RIGHTS-----organizations that do not have these GORILLA-IN-ROOM policy issues are not working to bring the right to vote back to our 99% of WE THE PEOPLE"
The Fox Guarding the Hen House -- A Cautionary Tale
Decisions are being made soon about who will run Minnesota's Health Insurance Exchange. Call Governor Dayton at 651-201-3400 and let him know, "Don't let…
1) Get rid of illegal designation of US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES which pretends to allow states and cities to avoid enforcing US FEDERAL LAW AND US CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. Those states' rights folks must understand these US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONE designation also kills STATE SOVEREIGNTY---as well as US LOCAL SOVEREIGNTY. We cannot have US free and fair elections if we are not enforcing US FEDERAL LAWS.
2) Reverse all that public private partnership that has every single US city agency controlled by global corporations and global banking. We are dealing with people choosing to do anything they are told---they are not LEADERS ----they are followers working to kill our US 99% and new to America immigrants. PUBLIC SPACE is necessary for PUBLIC VOICE.
3) We must stop these economic stagnation/patronage games with our local US cities. With REAL domestic free market economies having each community thriving and people fully employed global banking 5% freemason/Greek players will not have the power to capture our citizens to work for global 1% OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS. People made afraid of losing employment or housing cannot be CITIZENS VOTING FOR PERSONAL AND COMMUNITY INTEREST.
WE CANNOT REFORM US ELECTIONS UNTIL WE DO ALL OF THE ABOVE. IT DOES NOT MATTER HOW MUCH MONEY CORPORATIONS SPEND ON ELECTIONS----IT DOES NOT MATTER HOW BIASED A MEDIA OUTLET IS TOWARDS ONE CANDIDATE OR ANOTHER----IT MATTERS THAT WE HAVE PUBLIC SPACE FOR CANDIDATE FORUMS ALLOWING ALL CANDIDATES TO BE AVAILABLE TO VOTERS.
If we think reversing these easy peasy problems is too hard---wait a while longer to find what MOVING FORWARD has as a goal----oh, yeah---THAT will be hard.
Good thing great blacks are in wax-----whole lot of changes coming soon as to what is GREAT in America.
R.R. Moton(August 26, 1867 – May 31, 1940)
Became a spy for the FBI in order to take down Booker T. Washington. After this was done he moved on to infiltrate UNIA and also under orders from W.E.B. DuBois, help set up Marcus Garvey. And was given $5,000,000 and sent to Liberia to Marcus Garvey out of Africa. His next mission as principal of Tuskegee, played a major role under orders from John D. Rockefeller Jr in setting up the Syphilis Experiments. He is also the man responsible for the first black veterans hospital in Tuskegee.
Our 99% of Baltimore citizens black, white, and brown say:
our public policing and security is a mess
our public transit is a mess
our public water and waste is a mess
our public elections are a mess
our public housing and development is a mess
our public school system is a great big mess
THOSE GLOBAL 1% OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS AT IT AGAIN.
Who controls our Baltimore City Hall and agencies? Certainly not the Baltimore Mayor---certainly not our city council members----remember, this mess is brought to our 99% of Baltimore citizens courtesy of global Baltimore Development, Greater Baltimore Committee, global hedge fund corporation filled with mostly my 5% FREEMASON/GREEK white players. These are the folks appointed or installed as a politician because the only talent they have is LYING, CHEATING, AND STEALING.
WE CANNOT EXPECT THE FOX TO FIX HOLES IN THE HEN HOUSE FENCE-----THERE WILL BE NO US ELECTIONS UNTIL WE GET RID OF THOSE DASTARDLY GLOBAL BANKING 5% PLAYERS AND POLS.
We look at our Greater Baltimore Committee membership and what do we see? We see our university leaders, our religious leaders, our media leaders -----all of which are tasked with keeping US RULE OF LAW----US CITIZENSHIP RIGHTS ----MAKING BALTIMORE THE BEST IT CAN BE.
All of these below are what made Baltimore the most third world, criminal and corrupt, most unjust, most toxic in America.
THESE ARE THE FOLKS THAT KEEP BALTIMORE FROM HAVING FREE, OPEN, AND FAIR ELECTIONS FOLLOWING US FEDERAL ELECTION LAWS.
Board of Directors
Greater Baltimore Committee » About Us » Board of Directors
The GBC’s Board of Directors is a diverse group of the area’s foremost businesses leaders. Together, they are perhaps the most influential group of Baltimore’s corporate citizens.
GBC Board Chair
Paul A. Tiburzi Esq.
GBC Board Officers
Calvin G. Butler Jr.
Baltimore Gas and Electric Company
Mary Ann Scully
Chairman, President and CEO
Robert C. Embry Jr.
Martin P. Brunk
Office Managing Partner
GBC Board Members
Publisher and Editor-in-Chief
The Baltimore Sun Media Group
Peter G. Angelos
Chairman of the Board and CEO
Managing Partner, Baltimore Office
President and CEO
FutureCare Health and Management Corp.
Kenneth R. Banks
Banks Contracting Company, Inc.
President and CEO
Associated Black Charities
Partner, Baltimore Office
Zuckerman Spaeder LLP
Thomas S. Bozzuto
The Bozzuto Group, Inc.
Stephen E. Budorick
President and CEO
Courtney G. Capute
Partner-in-Charge, Baltimore Office
Robert L. Caret
University System of Maryland
Richard W. Cass
G. Mark Chaney
CFO, Executive Vice President, Treasurer
CareFirst BlueCross BlueShield
Daniel R. Chard
August J. Chiasera
Regional President of Greater Baltimore/Chesapeake Regions
M&T Bank Corporation
President & CEO
University of Maryland Medical System
The Cordish Companies
Albert “Skip” Counselman
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
Ronald J. Daniels
Johns Hopkins University
Maryland State President
The Howard Hughes Corporation
Regional President, Greater Maryland
Nancy W. Greene
Miles & Stockbridge
Adam A. Gross
Ayers Saint Gross, Inc.
Steve G. Harris
Senior Vice President & General Manager
Dell EMC Federal
Rev. Dr. Alvin C. Hathaway Sr.
Union Baptist Church
J. Howard Henderson
President and CEO
Greater Baltimore Urban League
Sandra S. Hillman
Sandy Hillman Communications
Richard J. Himelfarb
Chairman, Investment Banking
President & General Manager
WBAL-TV Channel 11
Mark K. Joseph
The Shelter Foundation
Francis X. Kelly III
Greater Maryland Market President
Bank of America
Community College of Baltimore County
Lawrence E. Kurzius
Chairman, President & CEO
McCormick & Company, Inc.
Jon M. Laria Esq.
Managing Partner, Baltimore Office
Ballard Spahr LLP
Mark G. Levy
Executive Managing Director and Market Director, Greater Baltimore/Suburban Washington Region
Archbishop William E. Lori
Archbishop of Baltimore
Archdiocese of Baltimore
President and Chief Executive Officer
Annie E. Casey Foundation
William J. McCarthy
Associated Catholic Charities, Inc.
Neil M. Meltzer
President and CEO
Charles O. Monk II, Esq.
Managing Partner, Baltimore Office
Saul Ewing Arnstein & Lehr LLP
Thomas R. Mullen
President and CEO
Mercy Health Services, Inc.
Jay A. Perman
University of Maryland, Baltimore
Kevin A. Plank
CEO and Chairman of the Board
Under Armour, Inc.
President and Chief Executive Officer
Timothy J. Regan
President and CEO
The Whiting-Turner Contracting Company
Kenneth A. Samet
President & CEO
MedStar Health Inc.
University of Baltimore
President and Chief Executive Officer
T. Rowe Price Group, Inc.
Joseph A. Sullivan
Chairman & CEO
Legg Mason, Inc.
Maryland Regional President
Wells Fargo Bank
Robert L. Wallace
The Presidents' RoundTable, Inc.
Abrams, Foster, Nole & Williams, P.A.
Morgan State University
Dr. Sheridan Todd Yeary
Douglas Memorial Community Church and Affiliates
OH, BOY! Remember when all that FEDERAL FUNDING FOR ELECTIONS was what financed all those public forum venues----a standard printing of each candidates' platforms and VOILA---every candidate was heard---all citizens could ask and discuss policy ------and we had no GLOBAL BANKING 1% OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS criminal and fraudulent electronic ballot machines where all that US election fraud does indeed happen courtesy of far-right wing global banking 5% freemason/Greek players.
NO RUSSIA RUSSIA RUSSIA PUTIN PUTIN PUTIN NEEDED
Sadly, our US southern states have never had free and fair elections---here this Federal grant sending these election FIXERS to southern states MOVING FORWARD GLOBAL FACTORIES faster than our northern states.
'Georgia, Louisiana and South Carolina are among only five states – along with New Jersey and Delaware - in which all voters use Direct-Recording Electronic voting machines that provide no independent paper trail to verify machine-reported vote tallies in the event of a close race or a security breach'.
States using election security grants for new voting machines that won't be ready for 2018
By Tony Pugh
- June 25, 2018 12:17 PM
In three Southern states with some of the nation's most vulnerable election systems, federal grants designed to help thwart cyberattacks may not provide much protection in time for the mid-term elections as Congress intended.
The $380 million in grant funding was supposed to help all states bolster their elections security infrastructure ahead of the 2018 elections after the intelligence community had warned that state voting systems could again be targeted by foreign hackers as they were in 2016.
States have until 2023 to spend the grant money, said Thomas Hicks, chairman of the Election Assistance Commission, which distributes the grants.
But the long procurement process for voting machines makes it hard for states to buy new machines with their grants and get them into service by the 2018 mid-terms, even though “Congress looked at getting this money out quickly to have an effect on the 2018 election,” Hicks said.
The money could have an impact in 2018 if states used it to hire security auditors to inspect voting systems in each county, said Ben Wallach, a computer science professor at Rice University who has studied election-system vulnerabilities in several states.
That kind of proactive computer hygiene could reveal bigger problems that might be caught and fixed before the mid-term elections, Wallach said.
But rather than shore up their aging, outdated voting systems, election officials in South Carolina and Louisiana will use their $5.9 million and $6 million grants as down payments on a fleet of new voting machines that won't be fully operational until 2020.
And in Georgia, where an 18-member commission is studying a similar replacement of the state's touch-screen voting machines, Secretary of State Brian Kemp hasn't decided how the state will use its $10.3 million grant.
Georgia, Louisiana and South Carolina are among only five states – along with New Jersey and Delaware - in which all voters use Direct-Recording Electronic voting machines that provide no independent paper trail to verify machine-reported vote tallies in the event of a close race or a security breach.
Experts have shown that a cyberattack could alter the programming of election-machine network systems and change voting results without detection.
WE ARE POSITIVE WE HAVE ALREADY SHOWN THESE ELECTRONIC BALLOT MACHINES ARE HACKED BY STATE ELECTION BOARDS AND DIRECTORS-----HACKED AT THE SITE OF ELECTION, NOT CYBER-ATTACKS FOR GOODNESS SAKE.
In 2016, Russian hackers tried to penetrate election systems in 21 states, although there's no evidence that vote counts were changed.
In response, Congress provided states $380 million in Help American Vote Act funds through the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2018. The grants range from $3 million for states with smaller voting-age populations, to more than $34.5 million for California.
The money can be used for things like cybersecurity training for elections officials, election-related technology upgrades or to fund post-election audits to confirm the accuracy of the vote counts.
The grants can also purchase replacement voting machines that provide an paper record, which can be checked against the final count. But the grant amounts are too small to buy all the replacement voting machines needed in states that use paperless electronic voting machines.
Many states, starved for funding needed to update their aging equipment, are using the one-time grants as seed money for costly new voting systems that state lawmakers must fund and approve in the future.
Even in Louisiana, which is moving to replace its voting machines in phases starting with the five largest parishes, the new equipment won’t begin rolling out in those areas until Spring 2019 at the earliest, said Meg Casper Sunstrom, a spokeswoman for Louisiana Secretary of State Kyle Ardoin.
“We’ve got to do it right rather than fast,” Sunstrom said.
Louisiana will formally request its grant money in a few weeks when the state legislature concludes a special session. The state hopes to replace all 10,000 of its 13-year-old paperless electronic-voting machines by 2020 at a cost of $40 million to $60 million, Sunstrom said.
In South Carolina, state officials will use their $6 million grant along with an expected $5 million in state funds to begin replacing more than 13,000 paperless voting machines, said Chris Whitmire, a spokesman for the South Carolina Election Commission. The effort, which likely won't be completed until 2020, is expected to cost more than $50 million, Whitmire said.
REPLACING PAPER-LESS BALLOT MACHINES DOES NOTHING TO STOP ONSITE HACKING OF ELECTRONIC BALLOTS-----IT IS MANIPULATED IN WAYS PAPER BALLOT AUDIT TRAILS CANNOT EXPOSE.
With just over four months remaining until the mid-term elections, at least 40 states and the District of Columbia have requested more than $266 million of the $380 million pot, according to the EAC.
"This money is enough that (states) could have security professionals go through and fix low-hanging fruit; installing the right security patches, cleaning things up, installing intrusion detection systems, improving the security of voter registration database," said Wallach, of Rice University.
But in the 13 states that still use paperless machines, the grant money is better spent on newer, more secure voting machines - even if they won't be ready for use in November - said Marian Schneider, president of Verified Voting, a group that promotes improved security at the polls.
"The utility of this ($380 million) is to go towards this large one-time expenditure to replace voting systems," Schneider said.
"What makes the paperless systems vulnerable is the inability to detect any problems with them," like a cyberattack, "and the inability to recover (vote counts through paper records) if a problem is detected,'" Schneider added.
In Georgia, Democratic State Rep. James Beverly of Macon, said the state should consider another possible use of its $10.3 million grant.
Replacing Georgia’s 27,000 paperless voting machines could cost anywhere from $40 million to more than $200 million, said Beverly, who chairs the Georgia House of Representatives Democratic Caucus.
Instead of a down payment on that cost, Georgia’s grant should be used in the 2018 election for technology improvements that ensure accurate vote counts in highly-populated areas, said Beverly, who's a member of the Secure, Accessible & Fair Elections Commission that’s studying a replacement voting system in Georgia.
State Representative Barry Fleming, the Republican co-chair of the SAFE Commission, did not respond to a request for comment in time for publication.
Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp is working with Governor Nathan Deal's office to decide how to the money will be used, said Kemp’s spokesperson, Candice Broce.