Violations of Election Laws


The United States Constitution enacts penal laws to preserve the purity of election process.  The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 regulates the conduct of election campaigns in order to protect the integrity of the political process and to ensure effective political debate.  The provisions of this Act supersede any provision of state law dealing with election to Federal office.

For the purpose of carrying out uniform and nondiscriminatory election technology and administration requirements, the Attorney General shall bring a civil action against any state or jurisdiction in an appropriate United States District Court.  A person should have acted knowingly in order to violate an election law.  However, a person not falling within the descriptive terms of a statute describing penal offenses should be excluded.

All provisions of election laws are mandatory.  The penal provisions of election laws are sometimes expressly made applicable to primary elections.  However, irregularities which are not caused due to fraud and which do not interfere with a full and expression of the voter’s choice should not effect a disenfranchisement of the voters.

 

IV. Complainant's Recourse

 A complainant who disagrees with the FEC Commission's dismissal of a complaint or who believes the Commission failed to act in a timely manner may file a petition in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. In the case of a Commission dismissal, the petition has to be filed within 60 days after the date of the dismissal.  2 U.S.C. §437g(a)(8) [PDF].

 



MARYLAND STATUTES AND CODES

Section 2-102 - Powers and duties. Listen § 2-102. Powers and duties.


(a) In general.- The State Board shall manage and supervise elections in the State and ensure compliance with the requirements of this article and any applicable federal law by all persons involved in the elections process.

(b) Specific powers and duties.- In exercising its authority under this article and in order to ensure compliance with this article and with any requirements of federal law, the State Board shall:

(1) supervise the conduct of elections in the State;

(2) direct, support, monitor, and evaluate the activities of each local board;

(3) have a staff sufficient to perform its functions;

[An. Code 1957, art. 33, § 2-102; 2002, ch. 291, §§ 2, 4; 2003, ch. 379, § 2; 2004, ch. 25; 2006, ch. 61, § 1.]




MARYLAND ELECTION LAW:

Subtitle 2.    Judicial Review of Elections

12-202.  Judicial challenges

a)  In general--- If no other timely and adequate remedy is provided by this article, a registered voter may seek judicial relief from any act or omission relating to an election, whether or not the election has been held, on the grounds that the act or omission:

1)  is inconsistent with this article or other law applicable to the elections process; and
2)  may change or has changed the outcome of the election.

b)  Place and time of filing.---- A registered voter may seek judicial relief under this section in the appropriate circuit court within the earlier of:

1)  10 days after the act or omission or the date the act or omission became known to the petitioner; or

2)  7 days after the election results are certified, unless the election was a gubernatorial primary or special primary election, in which case 3 days after the election results are certified.  (An Code 1957, art. 33, 12-202; 2002, ch.291, 2, 4)


12-203. Procedure

a) In general.----   A proceeding under this subtitle shall be conducted in accordance with the Maryland Rules, except that:

1)  the proceeding shall be heard and decided without a jury and as expeditiously as the circumstances require;

2) on the request of a party or sua sponte, the chief administrative judge of the circuit court may assign the case to a three-judge panel of circuit court judges; and

3)  an appeal shall be taken directly to the Court of Appeals within 5 days of the date of the decision of the circuit court.

b)  Expedited appeal.  ----  The Court of Appeals shall give priority to hear and decide an appeal brought under subsection (a) (3) of this section as expeditiously as the circumstances require. (An Code 1957, art.33, 12-303; 2002, ch 291, 2, 4)


12-204.  Judgement.

a)  In general.  ------- The court may provide a remedy as provided in subsection (b) or (c) if this section if the court determines that the alleged act or omission materially affected the rights of interested parties or the purity of the elections process and:

1) may have changed the outcome of an election already held; or

2) may change the outcome of a pending election.

b)  Act or omission that changed election outcome.  ----If the court makes an affirmative determination that an act or omission was committed that changed the outcome of an election already held, the court shall:
1)  declare void the election for the office or question involved and order that the election be held again at a date set by the court; or

2)  order any other relief that will provide an adequate remedy.

c)  Act or omission that may change outcome of pending election.  -----  If the court makes an affirmative determination that an act or omission has been committed that may change the outcome of a pending election, the court may:

1)  order any relief it considers appropriate under the circumstances; and

2)  if the court determines that it is the only relief that will provide a remedy,, direct that the elections for the office or question involved be postponed and rescheduled on a date set by the court.

d)  Clear and convincing evidence.  -----  A determination of the court under subsection (a) of this section shall be based on clear and convincing evidence.  (An Code 1957, art. 33, 12-204; 2002, ch. 291, 2, 4)
__________________________________________________________
Tuesday, March 04, 2014

Democrats to meet in three gubernatorial primary debates Democratic candidates for lieutenant governor to meet in just one debate by Kate S. Alexander Staff writer

Three of Maryland’s Democratic gubernatorial hopefulls have agreed to meet in three debates ahead of the June 24 primary.

In a joint statement Monday, candidates Lt. Gov. Anthony G. Brown, Del. Heather R. Mizeur (Dist. 20) and Attorney General Douglas F. Gansler said they have agreed on three debates, one each the weeks of May 5, May 19 and June 2, according to the statement. Details on where and when those debates will be held were not yet available.

Their running mates will also meet in one debate on a date that is yet to be determined.


Democrats plan two TV debates, one on radioApril 30, 2014|By Michael Dresser, The Baltimore SunThe three Democratic contenders for governor have agreed on a plan to hold three broadcast debates — two televised and one on radio — before the June 24 primary, according to the campaign of Lt. Gov. Anthony G. Brown.

Brown campaign manager Justin Schall sent out an email late Tuesday night said the lieutenant governor, Attorney General Douglas F. Gansler and Del. Heather R. Mizeur of Montgomery County had reached agreement on the plan.

However, on Wednesday morning, the Gansler and Mizeur campaigns accused Brown's campaign of breaking an agreement to make a joint announcement and said they would put out a statement later in the day. They did not say whether the details of the Brown announcement were inaccurate. Schall said that when the two other two campaigns declined to make a joint announcement of the agreement, he went forward on his own.

Brown's email confirmed their previously announced plan to hold their first debate, to be hosted by Washington's Channel 4 and moderated by NBC's David Gregory, on May 7 at 7 p.m. According to Schall, the debate will be televised in the Washington and Hagerstown media markets. So far there are no announced plans for it to be shown in Baltimore.

Schall said another debate will be sponsored by Maryland Public Television on June 2 and will be televised statewide. There was no mention in his email of a role for WBAL, which had previously been reported to be a co-producer. MPT has said its Jeff Salkin would moderate.

Schall said a third debate would be hosted by WOLB AM radio in Baltimore and would be hosted by former state Sen. Larry Young. The time and date of that debate has not yet been determined, he said. The email did not say whether the debate would be carried on WOLB's sister AM station, WOL in Washington.

According to Schall, the three candidates for lieutenant governor will take part in a televised debate on News Channel 8, a regional cable channel that serves the Washington area. It was not immediately clear whether that debate will be seen by Baltimore viewers. No date has yet been set for that debate, which according to Schall will be hosted by Bruce DePuyt. The candidates are Brown's running mate, Howard County Executive Ken Ulman; Prince George's County Del. Jolene Ivey, running with Gansler, and the Rev. Delman Coates, Mizeur's choice for lieutenant governor.

Schall said the campaigns are continuing to work out final details.

MPT is also planning to host a debate for the four Republican candidate for governor on June 6 as a co-production with WBAL. Del. Ron George of Annapolis, former Ehrlich administration official Larry Hogan, Charles County business executive Charles Lollar and Harford County Executive David R. Craig are expected to participate. WBAL's Jason Newton is scheduled to moderate.

Michael.dresser@baltsun.com





CIVIL CLAIM IN THE CIRCUIT COURT  OF MARYLAND IN BALTIMORE

 Cindy Walsh vs Bobbie S. Mack , Chairman Maryland Board of Elections; Doug Gansler, Maryland State Attorney General; and Democratic Primary candidates  Anthony Brown, Doug Gansler, and Heather Mizeur.


1.  Parties to this complaint


Cindy Walsh
2522 N Calvert Street                                   Civil Action #  __________________
Baltimore, Maryland 21218

Plaintiff

 
 VS.

 
Bobbie Mack, Chairman Maryland Board of Elections
151 West Street, Suite 200
Annapolis, MD 21401

Defendant


Doug Gansler, Maryland Attorney General and candidate
200 St. Paul Place
Baltimore, MD 21202

Defendant

 

Anthony Brown- candidate
100 State Circle 
Annapolis, Maryland 21401

Defendant

 

Heather Mizeur- candidate
House Office Building, Room 429
6 Bladen St., Annapolis, MD 21401

Defendant

 
2.  Jurisdiction

 

Cindy Walsh for Governor of Maryland is filing in Maryland Circuit Court because of violations to State Election laws and because of failure to uphold Federal Election laws as Maryland law requires.  I am filing in the Maryland Circuit Court in Baltimore City because I am a resident of Baltimore City.   
 

3.  Statement of Facts and Claims

 

MARYLAND STATUTES AND CODES


a)  Cindy Walsh claims election irregularities; requests to invalidate an election result can be taken to Maryland Circuit Court.


Subtitle 2.    Judicial Review of Elections  Section 2-102 (a) (b) (1) (2) (3); Subtitle 2. 12-202 (a) (1) (2) (b) (2); 12-203 (a) (1) (2) (3) (b); 12-204 (a) 1) (2) (b) (1) (2) (c) (1) (2) (d) 



 b)  Cindy Walsh claims Maryland Attorney General Doug Gansler has the power to investigate election violations through the State Prosecutor’s Office and as an elected politician has taken an oath of office requiring the upholding of Federal and State Constitutional law including election law.  Doug Gansler failed to respond to requests to investigate claims of election irregularities and participated in election irregularities so great as to change the result of the Democratic Primary for Governor of Maryland.

 

Chapter 612, Acts of 1976; Code Criminal Procedure Article, secs. 14-101 through 14-114; Sec. 6 (originally Article I, sec. 6, renumbered by Chapter 681, Acts of 1977, ratified Nov. 7, 1978).

 

 

c)  Cindy Walsh claims the Maryland Board of Elections Chairman Bobbie Mack is tasked with ensuring that elections are free and fair and to respond to candidate’s complaints identifying election irregularities and as an appointed state official has taken an oath of office requiring the upholding of Federal and State Constitutional law including election law.  Bobbie Mack failed to respond to complaints of election irregularities and this candidate's request for relief from those irregularities.
These irregularities were so great as to change the result of the Democratic Primary for Governor of Maryland.

Title 2 Subtitle 1 Section 2-102 - (a) (b) (1) (2) (3)

 

d)  Cindy Walsh claims Anthony Brown, Doug Gansler, and Heather Mizeur willfully, knowingly, and with malice violated FCC and IRS election laws and as elected politicians having taken an oath of office requiring the upholding of Federal and State Constitutional law including election law, have violated that oath of office.


ARTICLE I SEC. 6; SEC. 9.









The Maryland Circuit Court needs to know the extent of election violations and by which organizations in order to judge this Democratic Primary for Governor of Maryland invalid.  The Federal Court will try these claims of Federal election violation. 

 
Background to Federal Court lawsuit regarding election irregularities in the Democratic Primary for the Governor of Maryland

Censure in media and 501c3 events of my candidacy and platform damaged my campaign and denied the voters the right to freedom and intelligent casting of a vote.  This was a huge factor in election results and directly changed the course of this primary election.  Anthony Brown with 12% of registered democratic voters left 72% of those voters deciding not to participate.  Cindy Walsh with 1% of registered democratic voters could have easily won the 15% more of voters needed to win this election if not for the systemic election violations that left my campaign out of primary election events and media. 

The following FCC regulated organizations violated:

Section 312 [47 U.S.C. §312] (7) (f) (1) (2)

Section 315 [47 U.S.C. §315] (1) (2) (3)  (4)  Nothing in the foregoing sentence shall be construed as relieving broadcasters, in connection with the presentation of newscasts, news interviews, news documentaries, and on-the-spot coverage of news events, from the obligation imposed upon them under this Act to operate in the public interest and to afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views of issues of public importance.

Section 399 [47 U.S.C. §399] 
Section 73.1940 [47 CFR §73.1940] (a) (1) (2) (3) (b) (1) (3) (b) (1) (f)

Section 73.1941 [47 CFR §73.1941] (1) (2) (3) (4) (b) (c) (d) (e) )  Nothing in the foregoing sentence shall be construed as relieving broadcasters, in connection with the presentation of newscasts, news interviews, news documentaries, and on-the-spot coverage of news events, from the obligation imposed upon them under this Act to operate in the public interest and to afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views of issues of public importance.

 The following IRS regulated organizations violated:

1.501(c)(3)–1; Section 1.501(c)(3)-1(c)(3)(i); Section 1.501(c)(3)-1(c)(3)(iii); 178 Rev. Rul. 66-256, 1966-2 C.B. 210;  Rev. Rul. 74-574, 1974-2 C.B. 160; Rev. Rul. 78-248, 1978-1 C.B. 154; Rev. Rul. 80-282, 1980-2 C.B.; Rev. Rul. 86-95, 1986-2 C.B. 73

 4.  Demand for relief

Cindy Walsh for Governor of Maryland asks the court for the following:

1)       Invalidate the 2104 Democratic Primary due to election irregularities so widespread as to without a doubt changed the result of the Democratic Primary for Governor of Maryland.

2)       Find the Maryland Board of Elections and Maryland Attorney General’s Office guilty of failing to perform the duties of their office and of obstruction of justice placing these agencies under court supervision for a probationary period of several election cycles until the citizens of Maryland are assured free and fair elections.

3)       Find the Democratic candidates for Governor, Brown, Gansler, and Mizeur guilty of failing to honor their oath of office by upholding all Federal and State Constitutional laws especially election law.

4)       Provide the candidate Cindy Walsh an election venue after being denied one in this Democratic Primary for Governor of Maryland.  Disqualifying Brown, Ganlser, and Mizeur for participating in election irregularities would place Cindy Walsh the next highest in votes and therefore the winner of this primary.  If the court deems the entire primary invalid then allow Cindy Walsh a spot in the 2014 general election running as a Green Party candidate.  This would require the court to suspend general election filing date requirement date of February 2014 and suspending the law that precludes a candidate losing a primary from running in a general election.  If this is the solution then the court would need to protect Cindy Walsh from the same kind of censure through the general election this time because of being a third party candidate.

5)        Refund the costs of running this election including candidate filing fees for the candidates for Governor and Lt. Governor and costs of electioneering plus damages for an amount of $500,000.  The plaintiff asks the court to assure the Maryland Assembly pay this award or be sent to jail for contempt of court.


______________________________________________________________________

Violations of Election Laws

The United States Constitution enacts penal laws to preserve the purity of election process.  The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 regulates the conduct of election campaigns in order to protect the integrity of the political process and to ensure effective political debate.  The provisions of this Act supersede any provision of state law dealing with election to Federal office.

For the purpose of carrying out uniform and nondiscriminatory election technology and administration requirements, the Attorney General shall bring a civil action against any state or jurisdiction in an appropriate United States District Court.  A person should have acted knowingly in order to violate an election law.  However, a person not falling within the descriptive terms of a statute describing penal offenses should be excluded.

All provisions of election laws are mandatory.  The penal provisions of election laws are sometimes expressly made applicable to primary elections.  However, irregularities which are not caused due to fraud and which do not interfere with a full and expression of the voter’s choice should not effect a disenfranchisement of the voters.

 IV. Complainant's Recourse

 A complainant who disagrees with the FEC Commission's dismissal of a complaint or who believes the Commission failed to act in a timely manner may file a petition in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. In the case of a Commission dismissal, the petition has to be filed within 60 days after the date of the dismissal.  2 U.S.C. §437g(a)(8) [PDF].

 MARYLAND STATUTES AND CODES

Section 2-102 - Powers and duties. Listen § 2-102. Powers and duties.

(a) In general-The State Board shall manage and supervise elections in the State and ensure compliance with the requirements of this article and any applicable federal law by all persons involved in the elections process.

(b) Specific powers and duties.- In exercising its authority under this article and in order to ensure compliance with this article and with any requirements of federal law, the State Board shall:

(1) Supervise the conduct of elections in the State;

(2) Direct, support, monitor, and evaluate the activities of each local board;

(3) Have a staff sufficient to perform its functions;

[An. Code 1957, art. 33, § 2-102; 2002, ch. 291, §§ 2, 4; 2003, ch. 379, § 2; 2004, ch. 25; 2006, ch. 61, § 1.]

MARYLAND ELECTION LAW:

Subtitle 2.    Judicial Review of Elections

12-202.  Judicial challenges

a) In general--- if no other timely and adequate remedy is provided by this article, a registered voter may seek judicial relief from any act or omission relating to an election, whether or not the election has been held, on the grounds that the act or omission

1)  Is inconsistent with this article or other law applicable to the elections process; and
2)  may change or has changed the outcome of the election.

b)  Place and time of filing----a registered voter may seek judicial relief under this section in the appropriate circuit court within the earlier of:

1)  10 days after the act or omission or the date the act or omission became known to the petitioner; or

2)  7 days after the election results are certified, unless the election was a gubernatorial primary or special primary election, in which case 3 days after the election results are certified.  (An Code 1957, art. 33, 12-202; 2002, ch.291, 2, 4)


12-203. Procedure

a) In general----  a proceeding under this subtitle shall be conducted in accordance with the Maryland Rules, except that:

1)  the proceeding shall be heard and decided without a jury and as expeditiously as the circumstances require;

2) on the request of a party or sua sponte, the chief administrative judge of the circuit court may assign the case to a three-judge panel of circuit court judges; and

3)  an appeal shall be taken directly to the Court of Appeals within 5 days of the date of the decision of the circuit court.

b)  Expedited appeal.  ----the Court of Appeals shall give priority to hear and decide an appeal brought under subsection (a) (3) of this section as expeditiously as the circumstances require. (An Code 1957, art.33, 12-303; 2002, ch 291, 2, 4)


12-204. Judgment

a) In general------the court may provide a remedy as provided in subsection (b) or (c) if this section if the court determines that the alleged act or omission materially affected the rights of interested parties or the purity of the elections process and

1) may have changed the outcome of an election already held; or

2) may change the outcome of a pending election.

b)  Act or omission that changed election outcome ----if the court makes an affirmative determination that an act or omission was committed that changed the outcome of an election already held, the court shall


1) declare void the election for the office or question involved and order that the election be held again at a date set by the court; or

2)  order any other relief that will provide an adequate remedy.

c)  Act or omission that may change outcome of pending election.  ----- if the court makes an affirmative determination that an act or omission has been committed that may change the outcome of a pending election, the court may:

1)  order any relief it considers appropriate under the circumstances; and

2)  if the court determines that it is the only relief that will provide a remedy,, direct that the elections for the office or question involved be postponed and rescheduled on a date set by the court.

d)  Clear and convincing evidence----- a determination of the court under subsection (a) of this section shall be based on clear and convincing evidence.  (An Code 1957, art. 33, 12-204; 2002, ch. 291, 2, 4)

 

Legal basis of complaint:

Cindy Walsh for Governor of Maryland is filing suit in Federal Court because of violations to Federal Election laws carried in FCC and IRS organization requirements.

Below you see the FCC requirements for media coverage of elections.  It clearly states that media cannot ‘willfully’ allow reasonable access to time given to other candidates in a race.  There is no expectation of equal time or media platform coverage, but there is an expectation of reasonable access to those media vehicles and an expectation of accurate depictions of an election race to include a full list of candidates in a race :




Federal Communications Commission Rules (Title 47 Code of Federal Regulations)
Statutes and Rules on Candidate Appearances & Advertising

Relevant Sections of the Communications Act of 1934
Section 312 [47 U.S.C. §312] Administrative sanctions.

(a)    The Commission may revoke any station license or construction permit –

(7)    for willful or repeated failure to allow reasonable access to or to permit purchase of reasonable amounts of time for the use of a broadcasting station, other than a non-commercial educational broadcast station, by a legally qualified candidate for Federal elective office on behalf of his candidacy.

(f)     For purposes of this section:

(1)    The term “willful”, when used with reference to the commission or omission of any act, means the conscious and deliberate commission or omission of such act, irrespective of any intent to violate any provision of this Act or any rule or regulation of the Commission authorized by this Act or by a treaty ratified by the United States.

(2)    The term “repeated”, when used with reference to the commission or omission of any act, means the commission or omission of such act more than once or, if such commission or omission is continuous, for more than one day.

Section 315 [47 U.S.C. §315] Facilities for candidates for public office.

(a)    If any licensee shall permit any person who is a legally qualified candidate for any public office to use a broadcasting station, he shall afford equal opportunities to all other such candidates for that office in the use of such broadcasting station: Provided, That such licensee shall have no power of censorship over the material broadcast under the provision of this section.  No obligation is hereby imposed under this subsection upon any licensee to allow the use of its station by any such candidate.  Appearance by a legally qualified candidate on any –

(1)    bona fide newscast,

(2)    bona fide news interview,

(3)    bona fide news documentary (if the appearance of the candidate is incidental to the presentation of the subject or subjects covered by the news documentary), or

(4)    on-the-spot coverage of bona fide news events (including but not limited to political conventions and activities incidental thereto), shall not be deemed to be use of a broadcasting station within the meaning of this subsection.


FCC Section 315 [47 U.S.C. §315] (1) (2) (3)  (4)  Nothing in the foregoing sentence shall be construed as relieving broadcasters, in connection with the presentation of newscasts, news interviews, news documentaries, and on-the-spot coverage of news events, from the obligation imposed upon them under this Act to operate in the public interest and to afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views of issues of public importance.
 

Below we see the FCC statute for 501c3 media entities participating in elections.  Again, it is clear that these media outlets will not oppose-----which complete exclusion is opposition-----any one candidate.  This was systemic in all 501c3 media in Maryland.


Section 399 [47 U.S.C. §399] Support of political candidates prohibited.

No noncommercial educational broadcasting station may support or oppose any candidate for public office.

Section 73.1940 [47 CFR §73.1940] Legally qualified candidates for public office.

(a) A legally qualified candidate for public office is any person who:

(1) has publicly announced his or her intention to run for nomination or office;

(2) is qualified under the applicable local, State or Federal law to hold the office for which he or she is a candidate; and

(3) has met the qualifications set forth in either paragraph (b), (c), (d), or (e) of this section.

(b) A person seeking election to any public office including that of President or Vice President of the United States, or nomination for any public office except that of President or Vice President, by means of a primary, general or special election, shall be considered a legally qualified candidate if, in addition to meeting the criteria set forth in paragraph (a) of this section, that person:

(1) has qualified for a place on the ballot; or

(2) has publicly committed himself or herself to seeking election by the write-in method and is eligible under applicable law to be voted for by sticker, by writing in his or her name on the ballot or by other method, and makes a substantial showing that he or she is a bona fide candidate for nomination or office.


(e) A person seeking nomination for the office of President or Vice President of the United States shall, for the purposes of the Communications Act and the rules thereunder, be considered a legally qualified candidate only in those States or territories (or the District of Columbia) in which, in addition to meeting the requirements set forth in paragraph (a) of this section:

(1) He or she, or proposed delegates on his or her behalf, have qualified for the primary or Presidential preference ballot in that State, territory or the District of Columbia; or

(2) He or she has made a substantial showing of a bona fide candidacy for such nomination in that State, territory or the District of Columbia; except, that any such person meeting the requirements set forth in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section in at least 10 States (or 9 and the District of Columbia) shall be considered a legally qualified candidate for nomination in all States, territories and the District of Columbia for purposes of this Act.

(f) The term "substantial showing" of a bona fide candidacy as used in paragraphs (b), (d) and (e) of this section means evidence that the person claiming to be a candidate has engaged to a substantial degree in activities commonly associated with political campaigning. Such activities normally would include making campaign speeches, distributing campaign literature, issuing press releases, maintaining a campaign committee, and establishing campaign headquarters (even though the headquarters in some instances might be the residence of the candidate or his or her campaign manager). Not all of the listed activities are necessarily required in each case to demonstrate a substantial showing, and there may be activities not listed herein which would contribute to such a showing.

[43 FR 32795, July 28, 1978, as amended at 43 FR 45856, Oct. 4, 1978; 43 FR 55769, Nov. 29, 1978; 45 FR 26066, Apr. 17, 1980; 45 FR 28141, Apr. 28, 1980; 57 FR 208, Jan. 3, 1992; 57 FR 27708, June 22, 1992]

Section 73.1941 [47 CFR §73.1941] Equal Opportunities.

(a) General requirements. Except as other-wise indicated in § 73.1944, no station licensee is required to permit the use of its facilities by any legally qualified candidate for public office, but if any licensee shall permit any such candidate to use its facilities, it shall afford equal opportunities to all other candidates for that office to use such facilities. Such licensee shall have no power of censorship over the material broadcast by any such candidate. Appearance by a legally qualified candidate on any:

(1) Bona fide newscast;

(2) Bona fide news interview;

(3) Bona fide news documentary (if the appearance of the candidate is incidental to the presentation of the subject or subjects covered by the news documentary); or

(4) On-the-spot coverage of bona fide news events (including, but not limited to political conventions and activities incidental thereto) shall not be deemed to be use of broadcasting station. (section 315(a) of the Communications Act.)

(b) Uses. As used in this section and § 73.1942, the term "use" means a candidate appearance (including by voice or picture) that is not exempt under paragraphs 73.1941 (a)(1) through (a)(4) of this section.

(c) Timing of request. A request for equal opportunities must be submitted to the licensee within 1 week of the day on which the first prior use giving rise to the right of equal opportunities occurred: Provided, however, That where the person was not a candidate at the time of such first prior use, he or she shall submit his or her request within 1 week of the first subsequent use after he or she has become a legally qualified candidate for the office in question.

(d) Burden of proof. A candidate requesting equal opportunities of the licensee or complaining of noncompliance to the Commission shall have the burden of proving that he or she and his or her opponent are legally qualified candidates for the same public office.

(e) Discrimination between candidates. In making time available to candidates for public office, no licensee shall make any discrimination between candidates in practices, regulations, facilities, or services for or in connection with the service rendered pursuant to this part, or make or give any preference to any candidate for public office or subject any such candidate to any prejudice or disadvantage; nor shall any licensee make any contract or other agreement which shall have the effect of permitting any legally qualified candidate for any public office to broadcast to the exclusion of other legally qualified candidates for the same public office.

 

FCC Section 315 [47 U.S.C. §315] (1) (2) (3)  (4)  Nothing in the foregoing sentence shall be construed as relieving broadcasters, in connection with the presentation of newscasts, news interviews, news documentaries, and on-the-spot coverage of news events, from the obligation imposed upon them under this Act to operate in the public interest and to afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views of issues of public importance.


[57 FR 208, Jan. 3, 1992; 59 FR 14568, March 29, 1994]










_________________________________________________________________


Your honor,

I am requesting that this court nullify the results of this Maryland democratic primary election for governor because of gross misconduct, that the institutions and agency heads charged with enforcing election laws be found guilty of neglect and subjected to civil penalty.  Since the election system is rife with corruption and since the 3 Democratic Party candidates identified in this complaint are to be charged with what will be felonies when taken to Federal Court a repeat of this primary election cannot be a solution.   I ask the court to provide the opportunity of participation lost in this democratic primary to that of the general election for Governor of Maryland in November’s election by suspending this one time the election law prohibiting primary candidates from running in the general election and the law requiring a candidate file for the general election by the February 2014 date so that I may run registered as a Green Party candidate for governor.  Lastly, I request that this court provide financial retribution in election costs for not only filing fees for myself and my Lt. Governor but for the costs of electioneering throughout this democratic primary.

Attached you will see my FEC complaint filed on these very violations and what will become a Federal Court case filed next week that offers precise actions and dates of violations for the media and 501c3 organizations choosing to participate in this democratic primary election.  Because the FEC response window of 120 days does not meet the needs of this election I will be heading to Federal Court.  Your court may not be making these decisions on violation of Federal Election law, but these actions and dates are specific to the 3 democratic candidates listed in this complaint----Anthony Brown, Doug Gansler, and Heather Mizeur.  As a campaign entity, these candidates are charged with following the same 501c3 election laws as all others.  The violations of damaging another candidate’s campaign by omission on the grounds of platform issues and of allowing themselves as candidates to be categorized as having strong public support with polling numbers showing this far from the case and polling methods that a and using this information as a reason to exclude another candidate was done willfully and deliberately with intent to damage my candidacy.

I am charging the Maryland State Election Board with failure to enforce election law and in failure to protect my campaign when I asked for relief from the systemic election violations that were censuring my campaign.  On two occasions I was threatened with police escort out of the forum hall and with jailing if I did not leave-----a level of intimidation and coercion I have never seen.  Maryland Attorney General Doug Gansler provided counsel to this agency and these 501c3s as to these questionable guidelines and failed to provide counsel against these actions despite my writing his office more than once about the kinds and degree of violations existing in this election.  As a candidate in this primary race for governor, Gansler, like the other candidates, knew of the arbitrary use of these forum and debate guidelines……and indeed he was not to be categorized as having strong public support via polling data for most of the election used to exclude Cindy Walsh from these events.

It would be a great injustice to keep me from participating in the general election when I could have filed in February 2014 to run as a Green Party candidate and had that opportunity.  Instead I chose to run in my own political party expecting the democratic voters to see and support my campaign platform.  I include the evidence of widespread support of the views encompassed in my platform and the proof of disaffection with the platform offered by existing democratic party leaders has been roundly rejected as large numbers of people are assigning themselves to ‘unaffiliated’ and those that are affiliated with the democratic party are choosing not to vote in high percentages in many election cycles.  I show my campaign was viable and my platform widely supported.

 

Complaint:

 

1.       Systemic violations of the FCC and IRS election laws by media outlets and 501c3 organizations in Maryland creates an environment that is hostile to legal and viable candidates in the democratic primary race for Governor of Maryland.  This hostility is clearly based upon political platform.

 

2.       The guidelines used by media and 501c3 organizations hosting forums and debates are so arbitrary and the polling procedures and results leading to indicators of popular support so questionable as to fail in the exercise of identifying viability and strength of one candidate over another.  The damage done to my candidacy from this arbitrary use of ‘guidelines’ was extensive.

 

 

3.       Media and 501c3 organizations use language in describing the democratic primary race that is deliberately incorrect and misleading with willful and deliberate attempts to damage a candidate’s campaign.

 

4.       Whereas private and public media may not be required to meet all the requirements of the IRS election laws, 501c3 organizations are indeed required to meet those guidelines and failed on many accounts to do so. 

 

5.       The FCC election laws do not allow for private or public media outlets to allow one candidate access to election coverage at the exclusion of another based on platform issues.

 

 

6.       The citizens of Maryland have an expectation of receiving information from sources engaged in the primary election that allow them the ability to enter the ballot box with information that will allow the voter to cast an intelligent vote given the slate of candidates.  The total exclusion of candidates in a race from primary discussion leaves voters unprepared to make that intelligent choice.

 

7.       The institutions in the State of Maryland charged with overseeing and assuring free and fair elections failed in their duty and failed to respond to requests from a democratic primary candidate for relief from systemic election violations.

 

8.       Since the election violations I list occur to large extent in Baltimore City and Prince George’s County having a largely black and poor population, these election violations are civil rights violations targeting heavily black election districts.  My campaign platform is mostly civil rights and liberties, public and labor justice all of which is a priority for those black and poor voters.

 

 

 

Cindy Walsh is petitioning the court to allow judicial relief from date and time of filing this complaint from the 10 day after the act or omission to that of 3 days after the election results are certified for a gubernatorial primary.  Since the election violations were ubiquitous throughout the length of the primary, it was cost and time prohibitive to address each case in court at the time of occurrence.  This complaint needed to include a challenge to the election results as well as the illegal activities during the campaign. (An Code 1957, art 33, 12-202; 2002, ch.291, 2, 4)

Below you see a Supreme Court ruling that seems to be the source of the language used in Maryland elections as reasons to exclude or giving the idea of rights of selectiveness in forums and debates.  First, all these challenges reaching the courts are third party challenges and not intra-party exclusion of races by major parties.  The idea that we have a free and fair race when a primary candidate in a race is censured from all media and most large 501c3 events is not to be believed.  They are using polling as a guideline but actively ignoring these guidelines in any fashion they choose.  They are using the term top or strong candidates when most of the republican and democratic candidates were polling at 10% or less.  Then there is the fact that Cindy Walsh for Governor of Maryland was not even in the polls so could not have a polling number.  Willful and deliberate exclusion because of my campaign platform.  I show I am a legal and viable candidate; I show how the polling was questionable and arbitrary; I show that many election venues do invite all candidates because they know that is the election requirement for 501c3s.  It is the open violation of larger election venues that are breaking down the smaller venues feeling they must adhere to these election laws.  The citizens of Maryland are often going to the polls not knowing most of the candidates on the ballot and that does not meet the provision of having people free and intelligently casting their vote.

 

Citation. 523 U.S. 666, 118 S. Ct. 1633, 140 L. Ed. 2d 875, 1998 U.S.

Brief Fact Summary.

Forbes (Petitioner) was running for political office and was denied the opportunity to participate in a television debate.

Synopsis of Rule of Law. The First Amendment does not compel public broadcasters to provide access to programming for third parties.



Facts. Arkansas Educational Television Commission (Respondent) decided to broadcast a political debate amongst the top congressional candidates. One hour was allotted for the debate in a question and answer format. Respondent acquired enough signatures to be on the ballot after Petitioner issued the initial invites. Respondent requested that he be allowed to participate, but Petitioner still refused.

Issue. Because the government owned the television station was it obligated to open the debate to all candidates?

 

In 1998, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Arkansas Educational Television Commission vs. Forbes that government-owned public broadcast stations may also exclude candidates from debates, as long as the decision to exclude candidates is not based on their views, but rather on their viability — often determined by the percentage of voters likely to support the candidate.

The Court ruled that the Arkansas Educational Television Commission was permitted to invite only major party candidates, or candidates with “strong popular support,” to participate in its 1992 presidential debate.

This court case will meet the demands of this court in ruling in favor of all of the elements of my complaint.  I have attached pages that will show election violations of such a nature as to affect the result of this democratic primary election.

 

Statute 342---Overturning election based on irregularities

 

To set aside an election, a party must prove either fraud which leaves the intent of the voters in doubt or irregularities in conduct of the election of such a nature as to affect the result.

 

Statute 343---Contesting election based on irregularities

 

To secure judicial order for a new election a challenger is not required to establish that, but for the irregularities that she has established as a factual matter she would have prevailed.  An election contestant’s burden in seeking a new election based on irregularities may be met with demonstration that had votes been cast for her the result would have been different, and the standard is one of reasonable certainty as opposed to absolute certainty.

It is the effect of the irregularity on determining the outcome, rather than the fact of an irregularity itself that guides the court.

 

 

 

Statute 344----

 

A court may deem statutory provisions regulating the conduct of elections to be mandatory after election and thus capable of nullifying the results when the provisions substantially affect the free and intelligent casting of a vote, the determination of the results, an essential element of the election, or the fundamental integrity of the election.

It has been said that as a general rule, a statutory provision regulating the conduct of elections are mandatory in two instances:  When the statute expressly declares that a particular act is essential to the validity of an election, or when enforcement is sought before an election in a different proceeding.

Only if such irregularities are so widespread as to affect the outcome of the election or put the results in doubt may the election be set aside.

 

Statute 347----Curative Statutes

In order, however that a curative a statute may legalize a defective election the power conferred must be such as the legislature could have conferred.  Consequently, if the power could not have originally been conferred, the curative statute is without effect and the election is not legalized.  Moreover, the power of the legislature must exist at the time of the enactment of the curative statute.

 

Statute 348----Illegal Acts and Practices---Generally

An election can be annulled because of misconduct, fraud, corruption on the part of any election official----governing body or other person.  The entire vote of a district must be rejected where fraud, coercion, or intimidation are shown to prevail so generally as to render the result uncertain.

 

Statute 349----Fraud

 

The complainant is not required to prove a sufficient number of illegal votes to change election results, however, the alleged wrong must be so gross and palpable a failure of opportunity for free and equal expression of the popular will that the courts will not allow the election to stand.

 

Statute 350-----Coercion and Intimidation

 

 

 

Statute 382-----Basis of contest ----constitutions and statutes

 

The right to contest an election is purely statutory or exists only under state constitutional and statutory provisions.  Thus, election contests are governed entirely by statute and constitution and courts may not exceed the provisions in resolving election contests.

 

Statute 384----Purpose of election contests

Courts have described the purpose of election contests as being:

To determine whether the election, despite irregularities, resulted in a free and fair expression of the will of voters on the merits and obtain a new election if it did not.

 

To ascertain the true will of the electorate

 

To challenge the election process itself.

 

Statute 418-----Burden of Proof

 

The contestant has the burden of proving the defect in the election by clear and convincing evidence, which must produce, in the mind of the trier of facts, a firm belief as to facts sought to be established.

 

Statute 419----Showing required to meet burden

 

Courts have held that a contestant must:

 

                Demonstrate an irregularity or illegality sufficient to change or place in doubt the result

                Show that the true will of the electorate was thwarted, upon one or several statutory grounds

Show not only defects or irregularities in the election, but also prove that the flawed election led to a result that is not ‘true’.

Prove that either fraud or irregularities are present and that, but for fraud and irregularities, the outcome would have been different.

Prove that violations of election code occurred and that they materially affected the outcome.

Statute 432-----Judgment and the effect thereof

 

A court may be limited to either upholding the entire election or declaring it invalid.  A court may simply declare an election void if it concludes that it cannot determine the true outcome of the election.  Statute provides a circuit judge with the express authority to fashion such orders as are necessary to ensure that each allegation in the complaint is investigated, examined, or checked.



_____________________________________________________________________

 

Cindy Walsh tried every public justice outlet to seek relief from systemic election violations killing her chances of competing in this democratic primary.  I was being made unviable by media and 501c3 organizations that laws require to participate in elections in ways that do not damage a candidate.  My platform is what most democratic voters want to see so my campaign was not only viable-----I would have been a front-runner had the election venues been required to follow IRS and FCC election law.  This is why the censure of my campaign was so complete by all media and by the larger 501c3 venues…..they did not want my platform out to voters.

 

The public justice system in Maryland is almost non-existent.  The idea of pro-bono work from private law firms and lawyers who are often part of the fraud and corruption that grips the State of Maryland is policy meant to make sure there are no avenues for the public to seek redress from this crony system.  This is why I am representing myself.  It should be noted that when the court finds in my favor I should have the help of Maryland public justice in my further pursuits.

 


Me

To maryland@nlg.org

Mar 17

David Walsh-Little,

 

As a Maryland representative of the National Lawyers Guild I request your aid in what are election law issues.  I am running for Governor of Maryland on the democratic ticket and am aware that elections in Maryland are very crony and captured .....and want to address this with my candidacy.

 

Two things come to mind so far this election:

 

1.  Fox News WBFF made an outright erroneous statement about the governor's race.  In a report that toted Brown vs Gansler for the Baltimore City endorsements Fox stated there were no candidates for governor from Baltimore.  Well, I am that candidate for governor from Baltimore.  There is actually a republican candidate too, but I am asking you for help with my campaign.  Now, I understand that the media has no requirement of equal air time for elections, but is it legal for them to deliberately misinform the public on election issues like that?  I'm sure not.

 

2.  Brown, Gansler, and Mizeur have invited each other for a series of debates that do not include all candidates in the democratic governor's race.  Is that legal and do I have any rights regarding official party events like this.  I realize I operate outside the party system and I am a critic, but do I not have equal rights to be part of these debates?

 

Please arrange to meet with me to discuss coming issues.  My entire candidacy is designed to highlight the crony nature of media and party machines and the lack of free and fair in elections.  Your organization I feel would see this as important.

 

Thank you,

 

Cindy Walsh

 

Me

To aclu@aclu-md.org

Mar 18

I am a candidate in the democratic race for Governor of Maryland.  I am a political and social justice activist and one point of my campaign besides getting elected is exposing the capture of politics in Maryland.  Besides the outright conspiracy to close media coverage for all but crony political candidates, below I am sharing what is outright fraud by WBFF in presenting a media report on this campaign framed deliberately to leave out my campaign.  We know it is deliberate because I have sent more than one notice of my candidacy to all media outlets with requests for time to air my issues.  This is a legal issue but it is also a Free and Fair election issue that the Maryland Civil Liberties Union needs to embrace and make public.

Please work to make elections in Maryland open to all citizens.  Thank you for the work you do in supporting elections.

Thank you,

Cindy Walsh

 

Me

To aclu@aclu-md.org

Apr 27

You directed me to send my complaint through the mail or fax so I will do so.  I wanted to email this as well as I send off my complaint to the Federal Election Commission and the State Election Board.  I will need lawyers to take those violating these laws to court and would expect the ACLU to be outraged at such a systemic violation of election law in Maryland.  Please notify me as to how you will help in rebuilding free and fair elections in Maryland and Baltimore.  Forward this to the appropriate persons......

 

_____________________________________

 

Me

To marylandgreens@gmail.com

Mar 30

Hello,

This is Cindy Walsh for Governor of Maryland.  I was told the Greens may provide a lawyer for election irregularities.  I am of course meeting the media block on all candidates not corporate.  I want this race to be about winning, but the intent is to address these election biases and outright illegal actions against challengers.

 

Do you know someone wanting to hit these non-profits that debate but leave me out or public media who refuses to speak my name?

 

Thanks for considering,

 

Cindy Walsh

 

A request for public justice legal representation in a Federal Court law suit

Me

To pamela.ortiz@mdcourts.gov

May 20

 

Cindy Walsh for Governor of Maryland is moving to Federal Court with a civil lawsuit claiming election violations in Maryland governor's race.  I am preparing to move forward as a self-represent because none of the public justice avenues have acknowledged my complaints in the past.  This is my request to the state organization charged with making sure the public has the best legal representation.

 

Cindy Walsh
______________________________________________________________________________


Cindy Walsh for Governor of Maryland is asking this court to address these conditions that lead to systemic election violations and no recourse for a candidate running for office in the state of Maryland.  It is the Maryland Board of Elections and Maryland Attorney General’s office that are tasked with oversight and accountability and as you see below it is this very same Attorney General running in the same election with Cindy Walsh that engages in events willfully and deliberately ignoring election laws.  It is this Attorney General with a campaign promise to end the Office of State Prosecutor having no regard to the civil rights and equal protection provided the citizens of Maryland under the US Constitution.

 

  July 1, 2014 (copy sent to Maryland Board of Elections):  

To:  Federal District Court of Washington; Lee Goodman, Chairman of Federal ElectionCommission

From:  Cindy Walsh for Governor of Maryland Democratic ticket

RE:  Open violations and election rigging throughout Maryland election system but extensively in Baltimore City.

 

 

 A request for public justice legal representation in a Federal Court law suit



Me

To pamela.ortiz@mdcourts.gov

May 20
Cindy Walsh for Governor of Maryland is moving to Federal Court with a civil lawsuit claiming election violations in Maryland governor's race.  I am preparing to move forward as a self-represent because none of the public justice avenues have acknowledged my complaints in the past.  This is my request to the state organization charged with making sure the public has the best legal representation.
Cindy Walsh

 

 

 Cindy Walsh for Governor of Maryland is filing election complaints with election commissions and heading to Federal District Court (2)


Me    
May 18
To newsroom@wjz.comnewstips@wbaltv.comhooper@wmar.combienstock@wypr.org
Suzanne.Huettner@TheDailyRecord.comsteinershow@gmail.compearlstein@washpost.com
Len@MarylandReporter.comfwachter@mpt.orgfoxnewstips@foxnews.com
trif.alatzas@baltsun.com



 

The Office of State Prosecutor, Maryland

 

Mission

The Office of State Prosecutor was established by Constitutional amendment and legislation in 1976 (Chapter 612, Acts of 1976, ratified Nov. 1976). The State Prosecutor’s Office began operation January, 1977.

The State Prosecutor may investigate on his own initiative, or at the request of the Governor, the Attorney General, the General Assembly, the State Ethics Commission, or a State’s Attorney, certain criminal offenses. These include: 1) State election law violations; 2) State public ethics law violations; 3) State bribery law violations involving public officials or employees; 4) misconduct in office by public officials or employees; and 5) extortion, perjury, or obstruction of justice related to any of the above.

At the request of the Governor, Attorney General, General Assembly, or a State’s Attorney, the State Prosecutor also may investigate alleged crimes conducted partly in Maryland and partly in another jurisdiction, or in more than one political subdivision of the State.

If a violation of the criminal law has occurred, and the State Prosecutor recommends prosecution, he makes a confidential report of his findings and recommendations to the Attorney General and the State’s Attorney having jurisdiction to prosecute the matter. Such a report need not be made to the State’s Attorney, however, if the State Prosecutor’s findings and recommendations contain allegations of offenses committed by the State’s Attorney. If the State’s Attorney to whom the report is rendered fails to file charges within 45 days in accordance with the State Prosecutor’s recommendations, the State Prosecutor may prosecute such offenses. The State Prosecutor may immediately prosecute offenses set forth in the report and recommendations if they are alleged to have been committed by a State’s Attorney.

Where no violation of the criminal law has occurred or prosecution is not recommended, the State Prosecutor reports his/her findings to the agency mentioned in paragraph one above that requested the investigation. The report is made available to the public if the subject of the investigation so requests.

In investigating and prosecuting cases in which he is authorized to act, the State Prosecutor has all the powers and duties of a State’s Attorney.

The State Prosecutor is nominated by the State Prosecutor Selection and Disabilities Commission and appointed by the Governor for a term of six years and until his successor is appointed and qualifies. He may be removed only for misconduct in office, persistent failure to perform the duties of the office, or conduct prejudicial to the proper administration of justice. (State Government Article, Sections 9-1201 thru 1213, Annotated Code of Maryland).

 

 _____________________________________________________________________________

When you have a state that is ranked at the bottom nationally for fraud, corruption, and lack of transparency it is clear that this issue will be a top issue to voters.  There is copious media coverage of politicians acting in ways that provide proof of this ranking and the citizens of Maryland see this as a top issue.  The citizens of Maryland lose all of their rights as citizens when a government suspends Rule of Law and equal protection as has been done in Maryland.  This is why 90% of people do not go to the polls in Maryland during primaries, 80% of registered voters and 700,000 unaffiliated voters----only candidates that support this status quo are allowed the benefit of election coverage and event participation.  It is the candidate’s platform that motivates this exclusion.

 

 

 

Maryland

Corruption Risk Report Card Center for Public Integrity

 

 

Rank among 50 states: 40th

  Overall grade:

D-

Click a category to see detailed scores and notes.

Public Access to Information

F

Political Financing

C

Executive Accountability

F

Legislative Accountability

F

Judicial Accountability

D+

State Budget Processes

C-

State Civil Service Management

D-

Procurement

D-

Internal Auditing

C+

Lobbying Disclosure

D-

State Pension Fund Management

F

Ethics Enforcement Agencies

D

State Insurance Commissions

F

Redistricting

D-

 

 

In Maryland’s “clubby” Capitol, there’s little transparency, procurement policies are byzantine, and audit results are often ignored. Read more from SII State Reporter Christian Bourge

 

_____________________________________________________________________


 I am asking the court to rule in a way that requires the state to meet its obligation to protect and serve.  These politicians take oaths of office that require them to protect the US and State Constitutions.  The court can find Maryland Board of Election and Maryland Attorney General’s Office guilty  of Obstruction of Justice in failing to respond to my requests for protection from systemic irregularities in this primary election.

 

‘Obstruction can include crimes committed by judges, prosecutors, attorneys general, and elected officials in general. It is misfeasance, malfeasance or nonfeasance in the conduct of the office. Most commonly it is prosecuted as a crime for perjury by a non governmental official primarily because of prosecutorial discretion’.

 

 

 

'Maryland has the 44th-worst-ranked set of campaign finance disclosure laws in the country, according to a UCLA study'.


In Md. governor's race, Baltimore no longer epicenter for campaign cash
  By Aaron C. Davis and Luke Rosiak Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, October 30, 2010; 10:10 PM


Baltimore and its suburbs have for decades served as the epicenter of political fundraising in Maryland. Businesses atop the city's downtown high-rises, often with views of the shimmering Inner Harbor, and wealthy residents farther out in the tidy suburbs that ring the city's version of a beltway have most often opened their checkbooks for candidates running for governor.

Not this year. Down Interstate 95, across the twisty northern span of the Capital Beltway, and tucked in a cluster of gated mansions in Potomac is Maryland's new capital for money in politics.

Just outside the District line, Gov. Martin O'Malley (D) and former governor Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. (R) have collected more money from Montgomery County's 20854 Zip code than from any other.

"It's mostly Democratic around here, as you can probably see," said John Sverha, a retired former hospital president, motioning late last week to O'Malley campaign signs in yards flanking his relatively modest brick home off Falls Road. "I guess I gave this year to Ehrlich out of principle. I'm expecting a tax hike if O'Malley is reelected."

Sverha's $50 check stands out as noticeably tiny in Potomac. Down the block, a neighbor wrote one to O'Malley for $500. Around the corner, another for $1,000. And thanks largely to donations from a few hundred who live in tree-lined estates with four- and six-car garages north of Congressional Golf Course, the total for Zip code 20854 last week stood at nearly $600,000.

The Washington suburbs' emergence as a fundraising powerhouse, however, has done little to shed light on the industry and business interests working most intently to influence the governor's race.

In fact, good-government advocates say, the shift has only highlighted how, because of weak state laws, much less is known about the way money influences politics in Maryland compared with national races next door in Washington.

For its progressive reputation in many other areas, Maryland has the 44th-worst-ranked set of campaign finance disclosure laws in the country, according to a UCLA study. Donors are shielded from having to disclose the names of their employers, what industries they work in and other basic data commonly required to contribute to federal campaigns.

"When all you can see is that John Jones from Baltimore or Jane Smith from Washington is giving $4,000 to Martin O'Malley, that doesn't mean much," said Bob Stern, president of the Center for Governmental Studies at UCLA. "But if you can see that John works for a company where a bunch of other people are giving money and he's a secretary - and how can he afford $4,000? - it raises a whole other set of questions."

Maryland's lack of disclosures makes it impossible to come up with a comprehensive portrait of the interests behind the majority of $26 million being spent to elect and curry favor with the next governor, but a Washington Post analysis identified the industries associated with 40 percent of the money contributed to the two men over the past eight years.

The donors' employers and industries were identified through federal records from the Center for Responsive Politics, information from the National Institute on Money in State Politics, and Post research.

The analysis found that many with related interests are giving more than the state's $4,000 cap for a single political campaign and its $10,000 cap in a four-year period. Some are donating through multiple family members or divisions of a company.


One real estate developer has given 14 donations through 11 different names totaling more than $28,000 to O'Malley since 2007. Five members of the family of Craftmark Homes' Kenneth Malm gave $2,000 each to Ehrlich in a single day in May.

The analysis also turned up more than 150 businesses, some involved in hot-button industries, that have hedged their bets by donating more than half a million dollars to both candidates.

Penn National Gaming, which last month opened Hollywood Casino Perryville, the state's first slots casino, gave $16,000 to O'Malley's campaign on a single day in August. Penn and its political action committee split contributions that day. Each gave two maximum contributions to two different O'Malley campaign accounts.

Gambling interests have given at least $143,000 to the men's campaigns, mostly to O'Malley, in the past two cycles.

Merritt Properties and its leader, Leroy Merritt, which in September unveiled plans for a nearly 40-acre office park for military contractors near the Aberdeen Proving Ground, has in the past two years donated $24,000 to Ehrlich and $6,000 to O'Malley.

Merritt gave 19 contributions totaling $57,000 through 15 entities, including at least 10 differently numbered limited liability corporations. He's given heavily to both candidates but has favored Ehrlich.

Swaths of donors connected to utility companies, health-care providers, defense contractors and construction industries also appear to be betting on O'Malley.

The governor has aggressively moved to implement the federal health-care overhaul approved by Congress, while Ehrlich has vowed to slow it down.

A slice of large donors who work for hospitals and nursing homes favored Ehrlich four years ago. This time they have given more than $120,000 to O'Malley and about $26,600 to Ehrlich.

Total donations from a similar slice of top contributors who work in construction amount to about half of what they were four years ago, near the peak of the housing bubble. The group has given more than $500,000 to O'Malley and $235,000 to Ehrlich. O'Malley's administration has overseen the spending of billions of dollars in federal stimulus money and increased funding for school construction.

Federally registered lobbyists have also given more than $63,500 to O'Malley and nearly $13,000 to Ehrlich.

Combined, the businesses banking on an O'Malley win go a long way to explaining the governor's multimillion-dollar fundraising advantage. As of early last week, O'Malley had raised nearly $12 million to Ehrlich's $7.2 million for the full four-year fundraising cycle. National groups have filled in an estimated $7 million in additional campaign spending, split roughly evenly on both campaigns.

But another criticized feature of Maryland's campaign finance laws means political contributions made in the final weeks before an election are not revealed until weeks later. Nothing is known, for example, about the sources of $800,000 raised in a single day this month for O'Malley at fundraisers headlined by former president Bill Clinton and Vice President Biden.
______________________________________________________


Below you see a letter written to a Maryland public justice organization but sent to Maryland Attorney General, Maryland Board of Elections, and the media outlets included in this emailing.  This is April 13,2014 after repeated attempts were made to include Cindy Walsh for Governor of Maryland in events and media.  This was one of a few communications to Maryland Attorney General and Maryland Board of Elections and Maryland media to let them know they were willfully and deliberately excluding my campaign and damaging my chances in the race for governor.  It is evident that Cindy Walsh made every attempt to notify all players in this election process that exclusion was happening and that it was illegal and damaging my campaign.  I pointed out that some election venues followed the election law in inviting all candidates so the knowledge of the laws are apparent.

Just an FYI on the state of Maryland media and free and fair elections from the candidate known as 'the two other democratic candidates'

Me

To newsroom@wjz.comnewstips@wbaltv.comhooper@wmar.combienstock@wypr.org
pearlstein@washpost.comLen@MarylandReporter.comfwachter@mpt.org
foxnewstips@foxnews.comtrif.alatzas@baltsun.com

Apr 13

From:  Cindy Walsh – Governor of Maryland democratic primary race

To:  Susan Goering -  Executive Director of Maryland ACLU

RE:  Election violations are systemic in the Baltimore area

 

Cindy Walsh

2522 N Calvert St.

Baltimore, Maryland 21218

443-825-7031

 

Ms. Goering,

 

As a primary candidate for Governor of Maryland living in Baltimore City I request the aid of the Maryland ACLU and Maryland Attorney General’s office in addressing what is a systemic violation of election law that results in a crony and corrupt political process affecting all elections in Maryland, but especially the elections tied to Baltimore, the largest voting district in the state.  As a candidate I receive equal protection under law as regards elections in regions all over Maryland but in Baltimore I have not received one opportunity to advance my platform or to gain face and name recognition in this primary race for governor.  This is deliberate and it is why voting in the Baltimore is now down to 20%------there are no candidates getting the benefit of election law for whom voters want to vote.

Election are the fundamental principal of a democracy and the US Constitution is unique in the world in stating very strongly that US citizens are the legislators and their rights as citizens who determine law will not be denied.  The US is unique as well in a Constitution that offers equal protections under law to all citizens.  American election laws clearly state that all 501c3/4 organizations will provide equal access to forums and/or debates open to the community.  This includes the political party machines, education institutions from K-college, churches, and private non-profits.  These include as well all public media outlets from public radio and TV to government public access media.

I attended a public forum recently given by a private non-profit in Howard County that met every criteria in election law that was run efficiently and openly.  Every candidate in the election from local Howard County offices to governor race candidates were sent an email invitation and allowed to participate with equal time and freedom to share their platform to the public.  I have dates for similar events all over the state of Maryland.  In Baltimore, I am left out of every one.  Baltimore has a system where 501c3/4 either openly violate the election laws requiring invitation to all candidates and open forum to discuss their platforms or there is systematic exclusion with policy meant to circumvent the letter of election law with an institution hosting a forum or debate ‘sponsored’ by a private group of individuals that then select the candidates who are invited to speak to the public.  The election environment in Baltimore are the kinds of elections held in developing world nations having Constitutions not half as clear about protections of citizens’ rights and Rule of Law including law surrounding elections.  When I speak to a state politician whose district includes Baltimore I am told that’s just the way we do it.  Well, Rule of Law does not allow this.

I will take one incident already past as a case for the MD ACLU and Maryland Attorney’s office for election violation with the knowledge that I am documenting many such violations to be pursued at the end of this primary session.  Violations of election law taint election results and bring into question the candidate designated as having won an election.  In the world of Rule of Law and Equal Protection, this election process would be NULL AND VOID.  A government cannot allow candidates in major voting districts to be silenced and state that they have free and fair elections.

 

I am going to start by identifying the Baltimore Education Coalition and its education forum in Baltimore that selectively invited 3 candidates for governor and failed to invite all candidates for governor.  Not surprisingly, the candidates for governor chosen were politicians backing the education reform supported by the BEC.  This is a clear violation of election law and since education policy in Baltimore is a major priority for parents in the city, the failure to allow politicians with education policy stances counter to what most residents of the city do not want represents a deliberate effort to corrupt free and fair elections and voter’s rights to know the candidates they will see on the primary ballot.  When we see a constant reference to the top candidates in the media or as I am known in Baltimore public media-----‘the two other candidates’, you have failed to meet election law requirements that all candidates be given time on public media. 

 

Below we see two separate news journals and their approach to elections.  My campaign received an opportunity for input in many news journals across the state as they sent out a general email to all candidates in primary races.  In Baltimore, the Baltimore Sun which owns most of the news journals outside public media sent the email below and my campaign did not receive this solicitation…..again, the candidates chosen as the ‘top candidates’----which means global corporate and global market----were  included.  Now, election law does not require private media to meet election law, but media in America has always been pressured by government to provide a fair and balanced presentation of public events and especially elections.  I have received no solicitation from Baltimore public media for my campaign platform or time to speak of my issues----a clear violation of election law.  The Gazette, a Washington beltway news journal has a general solicitation policy to meet the spirit of election law:

 

Read candidates' responses to questions about minimum wage, the economy, taxes, education, Maryland Health Exchange, marijuana and the environment here.  Baltimore Sun’s North Baltimore Patch.

 

As part of its 2014 election coverage, The Gazette is asking all candidates for some basic information about themselves and to fill out a questionnaire. We will post this information on an election page on our website, www.gazette.net. Responses will not be edited, except for possible libel. We need the following information about you and the answers to the questionnaire below by 5 p.m. on March 21.

If you run into any problems as the deadline approaches, please let us know.

********************************************************************

 

The last avenue of election coverage comes with government public access media.  Montgomery County has democratic elections and a strong system allowing all candidates access to platforms sharing their views.  Maryland League of Women Voters holds its forum in Montgomery County and there is no such forum by the Baltimore League of Women Voters.  Its webpage links to this Montgomery County event.  Now, as a candidate I am happy to have at least Montgomery County branch adhering to the election laws and one can think that cost of providing this election event may be stopping the Baltimore branch, but again, the one strong source of free and fair elections does not happen in Baltimore, the largest voting district in the state.  Then again there is Montgomery County public access media that sends a general email to all candidates for office in primaries to come to their studio to record a platform stance to be available to the public, in Baltimore our government public access has nothing on the primaries:

 

The League of Women Voters of Maryland and its affiliated local leagues hope you will participate in this process and use this opportunity to reach out to voters in your district. For many years, voters throughout the state have looked to the League of Women Voters for fair and accurate information about candidates and their positions, as a nonpartisan organization that does not endorse candidates.

 

 

If you have already scheduled your appointment for Montgomery Community Media’s Candidate Spotlight, you may disregard this e-mail.  The deadline to reserve your space for Montgomery Community Media’s Candidates’ Spotlight is this Friday, April 11 at 12pm.  To make your appointment, please call  301-424-1730 ext 351 or 313. I have attached the information for your review. We look forward to seeing you at Montgomery Community Media soon!

*************************

 

I have shared these election violations and deliberate policies made to circumvent free and fair elections for a few election cycles to all the players I have listed above.  I have as well written formal complaints to the FEC and Maryland Election Board and Maryland Attorney General’s office for several years about this systemic problem in Baltimore elections.  I am submitting this letter to each of these agencies tasked with the protection and enforcement of election law once again, this time as the person victimized by this failure to uphold Rule of Law surrounding elections.

I listened to Jon Cardin at a primary event embrace the issue of free and fair elections in his run for Maryland Attorney General.  Now, Jon is the head of Maryland Assembly elections committee….and it is no coincidence that his election district reaches into Baltimore.  I asked Jon how systemic election violations in Baltimore and his district over decades holds up to having free and fair elections as a platform stance and by extension running for Maryland Attorney General……the office tasked with enforcing election law.  Remember, the current Maryland Attorney General Doug Gansler is not only ignoring Baltimore election violations, he participates in Baltimore forums-------like the Baltimore Education Coalition------that he knows violates election law.  As I inform the Federal Election Commission of all of these violations of election law by politicians tasked to upholding these laws we will see how the Federal government is protecting election law whether under a republican Bush or a neo-liberal Obama.  Remember, Rule of Law and Equal Protection requires laws to be enforced.

What the citizens of Maryland need to know is that not only are your rights to free and fair elections being violated by the political appointments to government positions tasked with creating and overseeing election law…and/or candidates allowed to run for office as Public Justice tasked with enforcing law openly breaking the law.…but the American system of government has all your elected officials taking an oath of office to serve in the public interest and protect the US Constitution.  No matter the office being local, state, or Federal.  So, when a Maryland Assembly politician tells me that Election Law is a Federal Law and not his business, I am shouting that the Federal Election Commission would not be derelict in its duties if all of Maryland’s elected officials were shouting about systemic election violations in Baltimore.  It is their business and it is their job.

 

I thank you for your time,

 

 Cindy Walsh

Candidate, Governor of Maryland primary race