CIVIL CLAIM IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

 



 1.  Parties to this complaint

Cindy Walsh vs WYPR Public Radio/Your Public Radio Corporation

 

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

Plaintiff

 

                   VS.

 

 WYPR Public  Radio/Your Public Radio Corporation
Anthony Brandon
President & General Manager
2216 North Charles Street
Baltimore, Maryland 21218

 Defendant

 

2.  Jurisdiction

Cindy Walsh for Governor of Maryland is filing in United States District Court for Maryland in Baltimore because plaintiff is a resident of Baltimore and the election irregularities identified in the Federal Court case include businesses located and operating in Baltimore.  The plaintiff claims WYPR/Your Public Radio failed to abide by election law.  Violations include FCC and IRS laws protecting elections.




U.S. Code › Title 28 › Part IV › Chapter 85 › § 1343 28 U.S. Code § 1343 - Civil rights and elective franchise

(a) The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action authorized by law to be commenced by any person: (1) To recover damages for injury to his person or property, or because of the deprivation of any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States, by any act done in furtherance of any conspiracy mentioned in section 1985 of Title 42; (2) To recover damages from any person who fails to prevent or to aid in preventing any wrongs mentioned in section 1985 of Title 42 which he had knowledge were about to occur and power to prevent; (3) To redress the deprivation, under color of any State law, statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage, of any right, privilege or immunity secured by the Constitution of the United States or by any Act of Congress providing for equal rights of citizens or of all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States; (4) To recover damages or to secure equitable or other relief under any Act of Congress providing for the protection of civil rights, including the right to vote.  

3.  Statement of Facts and Claims

 

WYPR Radio is a regional news organization for Baltimore and surrounding counties.  Its content covers news relevant all citizens of Baltimore the majority of which are workings class and poor.  It is fair to say this same population represents the bulk of its listeners.  It is no coincidence that Cindy Walsh for Governor of Maryland’s platform directed at the middle/working class and poor would be excluded by this same WYPR Radio.  My platform is what most of WYPR Radio listeners would want to hear and yet I was completely excluded; willfully, deliberately and  with malice and my platform never reached said listeners.  Baltimore has approximately 350,000 registered democrats most of whom are working class and poor so the exclusion of Cindy Walsh from this media market had a direct effect on the results of this race for governor.  Indeed, WYPR Radio knew the election results would have changed if a candidate prioritizing civil rights and liberties, public and labor justice were allowed media exposure.  FCC does not require a media outlet to give equal time to all candidates, but it does require that a platform not be excluded and that citizens be educated to the issues and candidates in an election race.  WYPR Radio willfully, deliberately, and with malice excluded my campaign and platform and in so doing damaged me and the citizens tasked with casting an intelligent vote.  Cindy Walsh claims that WYPR Radio violated False Statements laws by altering a government document-----The Maryland Board of Elections Governor's Race List of candidates and in so doing defamed the plaintiff by denying her status as a viable candidate.

 
Cindy Walsh claims WYPR Public Radio  violated the following:

18 U.S. Code § 1001  (a) (2) (3);Title 47 Section 312 [47 U.S.C. §312] (a) (7) (f) (1) (2); Section 315 [47 U.S.C. §315] (a) (1) (2) (3)  (4); Section 399 [47 U.S.C. §399] ; Section 73.1940 [47 CFR §73.1940] (a) (1) (2) (3) (b) (1) (2) (e) (1) (2) (f); Section 73.1941 [47 CFR §73.1941] (a) (1) (2) (3) (4) (b) (c) (d) (e); Section 1.501(c)(3)-1(c)(3)(i); Section 1.501(c)(3)-1(c)(3)(iii); 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. 178; Rev. Rul. 86-95, 1986-2 C.B. 73

Place, date, and time of violation:  WYPR Public  Radio 2216 North Charles Street, Baltimore, Maryland 21218; 12:02 pm Fri May 9, 2014, 11:00 am Thu May 22, 2014

4.  Demand for relief

Violations of FCC laws were willful, deliberate, and with malice and occurred over an extended time with dozens of incidents.  The plaintiff communicated the fact that damage was being done and described the consequences of the damage with total disregard by WYPR showing extreme malice. These violations can cause the FCC to suspend license.  I request that WYPR Radio be required to provide a weekly half hour prime time program for Cindy Walsh that allows for airing of public policy supported by her platform for a period of 5 years.  I request that WYPR Radio be placed on court supervised probation for several election cycles until these identified election irregularities are eliminated.  Its hold on 2 other public radio stations WYPO and WYPF must be terminated.  No one licensee should garner control of all public radio especially one with so much distain for Rule of Law.

Violations of FCC law ----Any person who willfully and knowingly does or causes or suffers to be done any act, matter or thing prohibited or declared to be unlawful or who willfully and knowingly omits or fails to do any act, matter or thing required to be done, or willfully and knowingly causes or suffers such omission or failure, shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished for such offense for which no penalty (other than the forfeiture as provided in the Act), by fine of not more than $10,000.00 or by imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year or both.

 

Amount of relief:

Violations of False Statement and defamation in Federal Court - $2 million, the sum WYPR Radio sought to deny Cindy Walsh with loss of election and her securing of employment as Governor of Maryland.  Wages and benefits from a 4 year term as governor would reach $2 million.

 

Violations of Defamation with punitive damages should send a message that these irregularities not happen again.  The costs to Cindy Walsh in conducting a campaign for Governor of Maryland plus 10 times the actual damage suffered requires $500,000 in punitive damage from deliberate, willful acts against the plaintiff done with malice.




Damages Awarded for Defamation in Maryland Among the damages for defamation in Maryland include:

• actual damages
• punitive damages
• other damages awarded by the court

 




 

Punitive Damages in Maryland: Reconciling Federal Law, State Law, and the Pattern Jury Instructions

·        


·         Stephen J. Shapiro

·        
University of Baltimore - School of Law

Fall 2007

University of Baltimore Law Forum, Vol. 38, No. 1, pp. 27-53, Fall 2007

·        
Abstract:     

·         Starting in the early 1990's, both the United States Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals of Maryland addressed the issue of jury discretion in awarding punitive damages. The two courts addressed the perceived problem in two different ways. The United States Supreme Court focused their attention mainly on the excessive amount of such awards. It held that the Due Process Clause regulates both the procedures used in awarding punitive damages and the amounts of such awards. The Court required that juries be given sufficient instructions to enable them to make awards based on the purpose of punitive damages, and required state trial judges and appellate courts to reduce the amount of such awards if they were “grossly excessive.” The Court provided state judges with guideposts for determining the appropriate amount of punitive damage awards and required that the amounts be proportionate to the amount of compensatory damages.

The Court of Appeals of Maryland focused its attention instead on the proof required for a jury to make a punitive damages award in the first place. It held that punitive damage awards could only be made if the defendant's conduct rose to the level of actual malice (evil motive or intent to do harm, or knowing that its actions would be harmful) and not just implied malice (gross negligence, recklessness, or should have known of the harm). In addition, the Court of Appeals of Maryland held that juries should be instructed that they must find that actual malice had been proved by “clear and convincing evidence,” and not just a preponderance of the evidence.

This article will suggest several changes to Maryland law and the Maryland Civil Pattern Jury Instructions, so that the instructions more accurately reflect Maryland law, and that Maryland law complies with the Due Process Clause. The proposed changes include:
• providing a clearer standard in the instructions for when punitive damages should be awarded;
• clarifying that the “clear and convincing” standard applies only to the finding of “actual malice” and not to the broader question of whether and in what amount to award punitive damages;
• changing the law, the procedure and the jury instructions relating to whether and when a jury may consider evidence of the defendant's financial condition in calculating the amount of a punitive damage award; and
• providing more guidance to juries as to the appropriate amount of punitive damage awards.

·         Number of Pages in PDF File: 28

·         Keywords: punitive damages, jury discretion, Supreme Court, Court of Appeals of Maryland, Maryland Civil Pattern Jury Instructions, compensatory damages, Due Process Clause

·         JEL Classification: K13, K49

·         Accepted Paper Series



·         Download This Paper

·         Date posted: June 24, 2009  

·         Suggested Citation

·         Shapiro, Stephen J., Punitive Damages in Maryland: Reconciling Federal Law, State Law, and the Pattern Jury Instructions (Fall 2007). University of Baltimore Law Forum, Vol. 38, No. 1, pp. 27-53, Fall 2007. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1425083

Punitive damages in Rockville, Maryland usually cannot exceed 10 times the amount of actual damages suffered by the plaintiff. However, this is just a guideline, and not a strict rule. Courts in Maryland have found larger punitive damage awards to be perfectly valid, and smaller ones to be invalid. This will be highly dependent on the facts of each case.

 

Violations of the election law requiring 501c3 organizations to invite all candidates to debates or forums as the only way to eliminate bias or showing opposition to another candidate.

What Does "Participating in a Political Campaign" Mean?
Organizations with 501(c)(3) status cannot participate in political campaigns.

What is a political campaign? In general, the IRS rule refers to campaigns between people who are running for offices in public elections. These can include: candidates running for president of the U.S.; candidates running for governor; candidates running for mayor; and also candidates for lower elected offices such as school board officials, city supervisors, and county trustees.

What is "participating?" Your organization cannot participate in a campaign, directly or indirectly, on behalf of or in opposition to a candidate. If your organization takes a stand in any campaign, supporting or opposing one or another candidate, this violates the prohibition.

LAW Section 501(c)(3) provides for the exemption from federal income tax of organizations organized and operated exclusively for charitable or educational purposes, no substantial part of the activities of which is carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting to influence legislation (except as otherwise provided in section 501(h)), and which does not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.

Section 1.501(c)(3)-1(c)(3)(i) of the Income Tax Regulations states that an organization is not operated exclusively for one or more exempt purposes if it is an “action” organization.

Section 1.501(c)(3)-1(c)(3)(iii) of the regulations defines an “action” organization as an organization that participates or intervenes, directly or indirectly, in any political campaign on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for public office. The term “candidate for public office” is defined as an individual who offers himself, or is proposed by others, as a contestant for an elective public office, whether such office be national, State, or local. The regulations further provide that activities that constitute participation or intervention in a political campaign on behalf of or in opposition to a candidate include, but are not limited to, the publication or distribution of written statements or the making of oral statements on behalf of or in opposition to such a candidate.

Whether an organization is participating or intervening, directly or indirectly, in any political campaign on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for public office depends upon all of the facts and circumstances of each case. For example, certain “voter education” activities, including preparation and distribution of certain voter guides, conducted in a non-partisan manner may not constitute prohibited political activities under section 501(c)(3) of the Code. Other so-called “voter education” activities may be proscribed by the statute. Rev. Rul. 78-248, 1978-1 C.B. 154, contrasts several situations illustrating when an organization that publishes a compilation of candidate positions or voting records has or has not engaged in prohibited political activities based on whether the questionnaire used to solicit candidate positions or the voters guide itself shows a bias or preference in content or structure with respect to the views of a particular candidate. See also Rev. Rul. 80-282, 1980-2 C.B. 178, amplifying Rev. Rul. 78-248 regarding the timing and distribution of voter education materials.

The presentation of public forums or debates is a recognized method of educating the public. See Rev. Rul. 66-256, 1966-2 C.B. 210 (nonprofit organization formed to conduct public forums at which lectures and debates on social, political, and international matters are presented qualifies for exemption from federal income tax under section 501(c)(3)). Providing a forum for candidates is not, in and of itself, prohibited political activity. See Rev. Rul. 74-574, 1974-2 C.B. 160 (organization operating a broadcast station is not participating in political campaigns on behalf of public candidates by providing reasonable amounts of air time equally available to all legally qualified candidates for election to public office in compliance with the reasonable access provisions of the Communications Act of 1934). However, a forum for candidates could be operated in a manner that would show a bias or preference for or against a particular candidate. This could be done, for example, through biased questioning procedures. On the other hand, a forum held for the purpose of educating and informing the voters, which provides fair and impartial treatment of candidates, and which does not promote or advance one candidate over another, would not constitute participation or intervention in any political campaign on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for public office. See Rev. Rul. 86-95, 1986-2 C.B. 73 (organization that proposes to educate voters by conducting a series of public forums in congressional districts during congressional election campaigns is not participating in a political campaign on behalf of any candidate due to the neutral form and content of its proposed forums).




1.501(c)(3)–1; Section 1.501(c)(3)-1(c)(3)(i); Section 1.501(c)(3)-1(c)(3)(iii);Rev. Rul. 86-95, 1986-2 C.B. 73

 

Election Year Activities and the Prohibition on Political Campaign Intervention for Section 501(c)(3) Organizations
FS-2006-17, February 2006 

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is releasing this fact sheet to provide information to help section 501(c)(3) organizations stay in compliance with the federal tax law. Many of the types of political intervention activities addressed in the fact sheet were those that came under scrutiny during the 2004 election cycle.  The contents reflect the IRS interpretation of tax laws enacted by Congress, Treasury regulations, and court decisions. The information is not comprehensive, however, and does not cover every situation.  Thus, it is not intended to replace the law or be the sole source of information.  The resolution of any particular issue may depend on the specific facts and circumstances of a given taxpayer. 

With the 2006 campaign season approaching, the IRS is launching enhanced education and enforcement efforts, based on the findings and analysis of the 2004 election cycle. The IRS is providing this fact sheet to help ensure that charities have enough advance notice of the types of problems that have occurred, the legal strictures against engaging in political activities and how to avoid these problems.

The IRS considers this fact sheet a living document, one that will be revised to take into account future developments and feedback.  This fact sheet is the beginning of the IRS effort to increase the educational material available to the community.  The IRS encourages comments which may be submitted to the IRS at the following addresses:

Internal Revenue Service
1111 Constitution Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20224
Attn: SE:T:EO:CEO
-or-
tege.eo.ceo@irs.gov

Churches should also see Publication 1828, Tax Guide for Churches and Religious Organizations.

Election Year Activities and the Prohibition on Political Campaign Intervention for Section 501(c)(3) Organizations

During election campaigns, many churches, universities, hospitals, social service providers, and other section 501(c)(3) organizations are uncertain about the extent to which they can discuss issues of importance in the campaigns or interact with candidates for public office.  They are also uncertain about the role they can play in encouraging citizens to register and vote.  This fact sheet is intended to help organizations understand what they can and cannot do when an election campaign is under way. 

The Prohibition on Political Campaign Intervention

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office.  The prohibition applies to all campaigns including campaigns at the federal, state and local level.  Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes.  Those section 501(c)(3) organizations that are private foundations are subject to additional restrictions that are not described in this fact sheet.

What is Political Campaign Intervention?

Political campaign intervention includes any and all activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office.  The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.  Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.   Distributing statements prepared by others that favor or oppose any candidate for public office will also violate the prohibition.   Allowing a candidate to use an organization’s assets or facilities will also violate the prohibition if other candidates are not given an equivalent opportunity.   Although section 501(c)(3) organizations may engage in some activities to promote voter registration, encourage voter participation, and provide voter education, they will violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention if they engage in an activity that favors or opposes any candidate for public office.  Certain activities will require an evaluation of all the facts and circumstances to determine whether they result in political campaign intervention.   

Voter Education, Voter Registration and Get Out the Vote Drives

Section 501(c)(3) organizations are permitted to conduct certain voter education activities (including the presentation of public forums and the publication of voter education guides)  if they are carried out in a non-partisan manner.  In addition, section 501(c)(3) organizations may encourage people to participate in the electoral process through voter registration and get-out-the-vote drives,  conducted in a non-partisan manner. On the other hand, voter education or registration activities conducted in a biased manner that favors (or opposes) one or more candidates is prohibited.

Example 1:  B, a section 501(c)(3) organization that promotes community involvement, sets up a booth at the state fair where citizens can register to vote.  The signs and banners in and around the booth give only the name of the organization, the date of the next upcoming statewide election, and notice of the opportunity to register.  No reference to any candidate or political party is made by the volunteers staffing the booth or in the materials available at the booth, other than the official voter registration forms which allow registrants to select a party affiliation.  B is not engaged in political campaign intervention when it operates this voter registration booth.

Example 2:  C is a section 501(c)(3) organization that educates the public on environmental issues.  Candidate G is running for the state legislature and an important element of her platform is challenging the environmental policies of the incumbent.  Shortly before the election, C sets up a telephone bank to call registered voters in the district in which Candidate G is seeking election.  In the phone conversations, C’s representative tells the voter about the importance of environmental issues and asks questions about the voter’s views on these issues.  If the voter appears to agree with the incumbent’s position, C’s representative thanks the voter and ends the call.  If the voter appears to agree with Candidate G’s position, C’s representative reminds the voter about the upcoming election, stresses the importance of voting in the election and offers to provide transportation to the polls.  C is engaged in political campaign intervention when it conducts this get-out-the-vote drive.


Individual Activity by Organization Leaders

The political campaign intervention prohibition is not intended to restrict free expression on political matters by leaders of organizations speaking for themselves, as individuals.  Nor are leaders prohibited from speaking about important issues of public policy.  However, for their organizations to remain tax exempt under section 501(c)(3), leaders cannot make partisan comments in official organization publications or at official functions of the organization.  To avoid potential attribution of their comments outside of organization functions and publications, organization leaders who speak or write in their individual capacity are encouraged to clearly indicate that their comments are personal and not intended to represent the views of the organization.

Example 3: President A is the Chief Executive Officer of Hospital J, a section 501(c)(3) organization, and is well known in the community. With the permission of five prominent healthcare industry leaders, including President A, who have personally endorsed Candidate T, Candidate T publishes a full page ad in the local newspaper listing the names of the five leaders.  President A is identified in the ad as the CEO of Hospital J.  The ad states, “Titles and affiliations of each individual are provided for identification purposes only.”  The ad is paid for by Candidate T’s campaign committee.  Because the ad was not paid for by Hospital J, the ad is not otherwise in an official publication of Hospital J, and the endorsement is made by President A in a personal capacity, the ad does not constitute campaign intervention by Hospital J.

Example 4: President B is the president of University K, a section 501(c)(3) organization. University K publishes a monthly alumni newsletter that is distributed to all alumni of the university. In each issue, President B has a column titled “My Views.” The month before the election, President B states in the “My Views” column, “It is my personal opinion that Candidate U should be reelected.” For that one issue, President B pays from his personal funds the portion of the cost of the newsletter attributable to the “My Views” column. Even though he paid part of the cost of the newsletter, the newsletter is an official publication of the university. Because the endorsement appeared in an official publication of University K, it constitutes campaign intervention by University K.

Example 5: Minister C is the minister of Church L, a section 501(c)(3) organization and Minister C is well known in the community.  Three weeks before the election, he attends a press conference at Candidate V’s campaign headquarters and states that Candidate V should be reelected.  Minister C does not say he is speaking on behalf of Church L.  His endorsement is reported on the front page of the local newspaper and he is identified in the article as the minister of Church L.  Because Minister C did not make the endorsement at an official church function, in an official church publication or otherwise use the church’s assets, and did not state that he was speaking as a representative of Church L, his actions do not constitute campaign intervention by Church L.

Example 6: Chairman D is the chairman of the Board of Directors of M, a section 501(c)(3) organization that educates the public on conservation issues. During a regular meeting of M shortly before the election, Chairman D spoke on a number of issues, including the importance of voting in the upcoming election, and concluded by stating, “It is important that you all do your duty in the election and vote for Candidate W.”  Because Chairman D’s remarks indicating support for Candidate W were made during an official organization meeting, they constitute political campaign intervention by M.

Candidate Appearances 

Depending on the facts and circumstances, an organization may invite political candidates to speak at its events without jeopardizing its tax-exempt status. Political candidates may be invited in their capacity as candidates, or in their individual capacity (not as a candidate).  Candidates may also appear without an invitation at organization events that are open to the public.

A candidate may seek to reassure the organization that it is permissible for the organization to do certain things in connection with the candidate’s appearance.  An organization in this position should keep in mind that the candidate may not be familiar with the organization’s tax-exempt status and that the candidate may be focused on compliance with the election laws that apply to the candidate’s campaign rather than the federal tax law that applies to the organization.   The organization will be in the best position to ensure compliance with the prohibition on political campaign intervention if it makes its own independent conclusion about its compliance with federal tax law. 

Speaking as a Candidate
When a candidate is invited to speak at an organization event as a political candidate, the organization must take steps to ensure that:

• It provides an equal opportunity to political candidates seeking the same office;
• It does not indicate any support for or opposition to the candidate (this should be stated explicitly when the candidate is introduced and in communications concerning the candidate’s attendance); and
• No political fundraising occurs.

Equal Opportunity to Participate
In determining whether candidates are given an equal opportunity to participate, an organization should consider the nature of the event to which each candidate is invited, in addition to the manner of presentation.

For example, an organization that invites one candidate to speak at its well attended annual banquet, but invites the opposing candidate to speak at a sparsely attended general meeting, will likely have violated the political campaign prohibition, even if the manner of presentation for both speakers is otherwise neutral.

Public Forums
Sometimes an organization invites several candidates for the same office to speak at a public forum. A public forum involving several candidates for public office may qualify as an exempt educational activity.  However, if the forum is operated to show a bias for or against any candidate, then the forum would be political campaign intervention.

When an organization invites several candidates for the same office to speak at a forum, it should consider the following factors:

• Whether questions for the candidate are prepared and presented by an independent nonpartisan panel,
• Whether the topics discussed by the candidates cover a broad range of issues that the candidates would address if elected to the office sought and are of interest to the public,
• Whether each candidate is given an equal opportunity to present his or her view on the issues discussed,
• Whether the candidates are asked to agree or disagree with positions, agendas, platforms or statements of the organization, and
• Whether a moderator comments on the questions or otherwise implies approval or disapproval of the candidates.
 
Example 7: President E is the president of Society N, a historical society that is a section 501(c)(3) organization.  In the month prior to the election, President E invites the three Congressional candidates for the district in which Society N is located to address the members, one each at a regular meeting held on three successive weeks.  Each candidate is given an equal opportunity to address and field questions on a wide variety of topics from the members.  Society N’s publicity announcing the dates for each of the candidate’s speeches and President E’s introduction of each candidate include no comments on their qualifications or any indication of a preference for any candidate.  Society N’s actions do not constitute political campaign intervention.

Example 8:  The facts are the same as in Example 7 except that there are four candidates in the race rather than three, and one of the candidates declines the invitation to speak.  In the publicity announcing the dates for each of the candidate’s speeches, Society N includes a statement that the order of the speakers was determined at random and the fourth candidate declined the Society’s invitation to speak.  President E makes the same statement in his opening remarks at each of the meetings where one of the candidates is speaking.  Society N’s actions do not constitute political campaign intervention.

Example 9: Minister F is the minister of Church O, a section 501(c)(3) organization. The Sunday before the November election, Minister F invites Senate Candidate X to preach to her congregation during worship services.  During his remarks, Candidate X states, “I am asking not only for your votes, but for your enthusiasm and dedication, for your willingness to go the extra mile to get a very large turnout on Tuesday.”  Minister F invites no other candidate to address her congregation during the Senatorial campaign.  Because these activities take place during official church services, they are attributed to Church O.  By selectively providing church facilities to allow Candidate X to speak in support of his campaign, Church O’s actions constitute political campaign intervention.

Speaking or Participating as a Non-Candidate
Candidates may also appear or speak at organization events in a non-candidate capacity.  For instance, a political candidate may be a public figure who is invited to speak because he or she: (a) currently holds, or formerly held, public office; (b) is considered an expert in a non political field; or (c) is a celebrity or has led a distinguished military, legal, or public service career.  A candidate may choose to attend an event that is open to the public, such as a lecture, concert or worship service.  The candidate’s presence at an organization-sponsored event does not, by itself, cause the organization to be engaged in political campaign intervention.  However, if the candidate is publicly recognized by the organization, or if the candidate is invited to speak, the organization must ensure that:

• The individual is chosen to speak solely for reasons other than candidacy for public office;
• The individual speaks only in a non-candidate capacity;
• Neither the individual nor any representative of the organization makes any mention of his or her candidacy or the election;
• No campaign activity occurs in connection with the candidate’s attendance; and
• The organization maintains a nonpartisan atmosphere on the premises or at the event where the candidate is present.

In addition, the organization should clearly indicate the capacity in which the candidate is appearing and should not mention the individual’s political candidacy or the upcoming election in the communications announcing the candidate’s attendance at the event.

Example 10: Historical society P is a section 501(c)(3) organization.  Society P is located in the state capital.  President G is the president of Society P and customarily acknowledges the presence of any public officials present during meetings.  During the state gubernatorial race, Lieutenant Governor Y, a candidate, attends a meeting of the historical society.  President G acknowledges the Lieutenant Governor’s presence in his customary manner, saying, “We are happy to have joining us this evening Lieutenant Governor Y.”  President G makes no reference in his welcome to the Lieutenant Governor’s candidacy or the election.  Society P has not engaged in political campaign intervention as a result of President G’s actions.

Example 11: Chairman H is the chairman of the Board of Hospital Q, a section 501(c)(3) organization.  Hospital Q is building a new wing.  Chairman H invites Congressman Z, the representative for the district containing Hospital Q, to attend the groundbreaking ceremony for the new wing.   Congressman Z is running for reelection at the time.  Chairman H makes no reference in her introduction to Congressman Z’s candidacy or the election.  Congressman Z also makes no reference to his candidacy or the election and does not do any fundraising while at Hospital Q.  Hospital Q has not intervened in a political campaign.

Example 12:  University X is a section 501(c)(3) organization.  X publishes an alumni newsletter on a regular basis.  Individual alumni are invited to send in updates about themselves which are printed in each edition of the newsletter.   After receiving an update letter from Alumnus Q, X prints the following:  “Alumnus Q, class of ‘XX is running for mayor of Metropolis.”   The newsletter does not contain any reference to this election or to Alumnus Q’s candidacy other than this statement of fact.   University X has not intervened in a political campaign. 

Example 13:  Mayor G attends a concert performed by Symphony S, a section 501(c)(3) organization, in City Park.  The concert is free and open to the public.  Mayor G is a candidate for reelection, and the concert takes place after the primary and before the general election.  During the concert, the chairman of S’s board addresses the crowd and says, “I am pleased to see Mayor G here tonight.  Without his support, these free concerts in City Park would not be possible.  We will need his help if we want these concerts to continue next year so please support Mayor G in November as he has supported us.”  As a result of these remarks, Symphony S has engaged in political campaign intervention.

Issue Advocacy vs. Political Campaign Intervention

Under federal tax law, section 501(c)(3) organizations may take positions on public policy issues, including issues that divide candidates in an election for public office.  However, section 501(c)(3) organizations must avoid any issue advocacy that functions as political campaign intervention.  Even if a statement does not expressly tell an audience to vote for or against a specific candidate, an organization delivering the statement is at risk of violating the political campaign intervention prohibition if there is any message favoring or opposing a candidate.  A statement can identify a candidate not only by stating the candidate’s name but also by other means such as showing a picture of the candidate, referring to political party affiliations, or other distinctive features of a candidate’s platform or biography.   All the facts and circumstances need to be considered to determine if the advocacy is political campaign intervention.

Key factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
• Whether  the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office;
• Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval for one or more candidates’ positions and/or actions;
• Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election;
• Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election;
• Whether the issue addressed in the communication has been raised as an issue distinguishing candidates for a given office;
• Whether the communication is part of an ongoing series of communications by the organization on the same issue that are made independent of the timing of any election; and
• Whether the timing of the communication and identification of the candidate are related to a non-electoral event such as a scheduled vote on specific legislation by an officeholder who also happens to be a candidate for public office. 

A communication is particularly at risk of political campaign intervention when it makes reference to candidates or voting in a specific upcoming election.  Nevertheless, the communication must still be considered in context before arriving at any conclusions.

Example 14: University O, a section 501(c)(3) organization, prepares and finances a full page newspaper advertisement that is published in several large circulation newspapers in State V shortly before an election in which Senator C is a candidate for nomination in a party primary.  Senator C represents State V in the United States Senate.  The advertisement states that S. 24, a pending bill in the United States Senate, would provide additional opportunities for State V residents to attend college, but Senator C has opposed similar measures in the past.  The advertisement ends with the statement “Call or write Senator C to tell him to vote for S. 24.”  Educational issues have not been raised as an issue distinguishing Senator C from any opponent.  S. 24 is scheduled for a vote in the United States Senate before the election, soon after the date that the advertisement is published in the newspapers.  Even though the advertisement appears shortly before the election and identifies Senator C’s position on the issue as contrary to O’s position, University O has not violated the political campaign intervention prohibition because the advertisement does not mention the election or the candidacy of Senator C, education issues have not been raised as distinguishing Senator C from any opponent, and the timing of the advertisement and the identification of Senator C are directly related to the specifically identified legislation University O is supporting and appears immediately before the United States Senate is scheduled to vote on that particular legislation.  The candidate identified, Senator C, is an officeholder who is in a position to vote on the legislation. 

Example 15: Organization R, a section 501(c)(3) organization that educates the public about the need for improved public education, prepares and finances a radio advertisement urging an increase in state funding for public education in State X, which requires a legislative appropriation.  Governor E is the governor of State X.  The radio advertisement is first broadcast on several radio stations in State X beginning shortly before an election in which Governor E is a candidate for re election. The advertisement is not part of an ongoing series of substantially similar advocacy communications by Organization R on the same issue.   The advertisement cites numerous statistics indicating that public education in State X is under funded.  While the advertisement does not say anything about Governor E’s position on funding for public education, it ends with “Tell Governor E what you think about our under-funded schools.”  In public appearances and campaign literature, Governor E’s opponent has made funding of public education an issue in the campaign by focusing on Governor E’s veto of an income tax increase the previous year to increase funding of public education.  At the time the advertisement is broadcast, no legislative vote or other major legislative activity is scheduled in the State X legislature on state funding of public education.  Organization R has violated the political campaign prohibition because the advertisement identifies Governor E, appears shortly before an election in which Governor E is a candidate, is not part of an ongoing series of substantially similar advocacy communications by Organization R on the same issue, is not timed to coincide with a non election event such as a legislative vote or other major legislative action on that issue, and takes a position on an issue that the opponent has used to distinguish himself from Governor E. 

Example 16:  Candidate A and Candidate B are candidates for the state senate in District W of State X.  The issue of State X funding for a new mass transit project in District W is a prominent issue in the campaign.  Both candidates have spoken out on the issue.  Candidate A supports for the new mass transit project.  Candidate B opposes the project and supports State X funding for highway improvements instead.  P is the executive director of C, a section 501(c)(3) organization that promotes community development in District W.  At C’s annual fundraising dinner in District W, which takes place in the month before the election in State X, P gives a lengthy speech about community development issues including the transportation issues.  P does not mention the name of any candidate or any political party.  However, at the conclusion of the speech, P makes the following statement, “For those of you who care about quality of life in District W and the growing traffic congestion, there is a very important choice coming up next month.  We need new mass transit.  More highway funding will not make a difference.  You have the power to relieve the congestion and improve your quality of life in District W.  Use that power when you go to the polls and cast your vote in the election for your state senator.”  C has violated the political campaign intervention as a result of P's remarks at C's official function shortly before the election, in which P referred to the upcoming election after stating a position on an issue that is a prominent issue in a campaign that distinguishes the candidates.

Voter Guides

Voter guides are usually pamphlets or other short documents, often in chart form, intended to help voters compare candidates’ positions on a set of issues.  Preparing or distributing a voter guide may violate the prohibition against political campaign intervention if the guide focuses on a single issue or narrow range of issues, or if the questions are structured to reflect bias.  Although any document that identifies candidates and their positions close in time to an election has the potential to result in political campaign intervention, preparation or distribution of voter guides, because of their nature, present a particular risk for non compliance.  The following factors are key considerations in whether a voter guide can be distributed to educate voters without violating the prohibition on political campaign intervention. 

• Whether the questions and any other description of the issues are clear and unbiased in both their structure and content.

• Whether the questions posed provided to the candidates are identical to those included in the voter guide.

• Whether the candidates are given a reasonable amount of time to respond to the questions.  If the candidate is given limited choices for an answer to a question (e.g. yes/no, support/oppose), whether the candidate is also given a reasonable opportunity to explain his position in his own words and that explanation is included in the voter guide.

• Whether the answers in the voter guide are those provided by the candidates in response to the questions, including whether the candidate's answers are unedited, and whether they appear in close proximity to the question to which they respond.

• Whether all candidates for a particular office are covered.

• Whether the number of questions, and the subjects covered, are sufficient to encompass most major issues of interest to the entire electorate. 

In assessing whether a voter guide is unbiased and nonpartisan, every aspect of the voter guide’s format, content and distribution must be taken into consideration.  If the organization’s position on one or more issues is set out in the guide so that it can be compared to the candidates’ positions, the guide will constitute political campaign intervention.

An organization may be asked to distribute voter guides prepared by a third party.  Each organization that distributes one or more voter guides is responsible for its own actions.  If the voter guide is biased, distribution of the voter guide is an act of political campaign intervention.  Therefore, an organization should reach its own independent conclusion about whether a voter guide prepared by itself or prepared by a third party covers a broad scope of issues and uses neutral form and content.

Business Activity

The question of whether an activity constitutes participation or intervention in a political campaign may also arise in the context of a business activity of the organization, such as selling or renting of mailing lists, the leasing of office space, or the acceptance of paid political advertising.  In this context, some of the factors to be considered in determining whether the organization has engaged in political campaign intervention include the following:

• Whether the good, service or facility is available to candidates in the same election on an equal basis,

• Whether the good, service, or facility is available only to candidates and not to the general public,

• Whether the fees charged to candidates are at the organization’s customary and usual rates, and

• Whether the activity is an ongoing activity of the organization or whether it is conducted only for a particular candidate.


Example 17:  Museum K is a section 501(c)(3) organization.  It owns an historic building that has a large hall suitable for hosting dinners and receptions.  For several years, Museum K has made the hall available for rent to members of the public.  Standard fees are set for renting the hall based on the number of people in attendance, and a number of different organizations have rented the hall.  Museum K rents the hall on a first come, first served basis.  Candidate P rents Museum K’s social hall for a fundraising dinner.  Candidate P’s campaign pays the standard fee for the dinner.  Museum K is not involved in political campaign intervention as a result of renting the hall to Candidate P for use as the site of a campaign fundraising dinner.

Example 18:  Theater L is a section 501(c)(3) organization.  It maintains a mailing list of all of its subscribers and contributors.  Theater L has never rented its mailing list to a third party.  Theater L is approached by the campaign committee of Candidate Q, who supports increased funding for the arts.  Candidate Q's campaign committee offers to rent Theater L's mailing list for a fee that is comparable to fees charged by other similar organizations. Theater L rents its mailing list to Candidate Q's campaign committee.  Theater L declines similar requests from campaign committees of other candidates. Theater L has intervened in a political campaign.

Web Sites

The Internet has become a widely used communications tool.  Section 501(c)(3) organizations use their own web sites to disseminate statements and information.  They also routinely link their web sites to web sites maintained by other organizations as a way of providing additional information that the organizations believe is useful or relevant to the public. 

A web site is a form of communication.  If an organization posts something on its web site that favors or opposes a candidate for public office, the organization will be treated the same as if it distributed printed material, oral statements or broadcasts that favored or opposed a candidate.

An organization has control over whether it establishes a link to another site.  When an organization establishes a link to another web site, the organization is responsible for the consequences of establishing and maintaining that link, even if the organization does not have control over the content of the linked site.  Because the linked content may change over time, an organization may reduce the risk of political campaign intervention by monitoring the linked content and adjusting the links accordingly.   

Links to candidate-related material, by themselves, do not necessarily constitute political campaign intervention.  The IRS will take all the facts and circumstances into account when assessing whether a link produces that result.  The facts and circumstances to be considered include, but are not limited to, the context for the link on the organization’s web site, whether all candidates are represented, any exempt purpose served by offering the link, and the directness of the links between the organization’s web site and the web page that contains material favoring or opposing a candidate for public office.

Example 19: M, a section 501(c)(3) organization, maintains a web site and posts an unbiased, nonpartisan voter guide that is prepared consistent with the principles discussed in the voter guide section above.  For each candidate covered in the voter guide, M includes a link to that candidate’s official campaign web site.  The links to the candidate web sites are presented on a consistent neutral basis for each candidate, with text saying “For more information on Candidate X, you may consult [URL].”   M has not intervened in a political campaign because the links are provided for the exempt purpose of educating voters and are presented in a neutral, unbiased manner that includes all candidates for a particular office.

Example 20: Hospital N, a section 501(c)(3) organization, maintains a web site that includes such information as medical staff listings, directions to Hospital N, and descriptions of its specialty health programs, major research projects, and other community outreach programs.  On one page of the web site, Hospital N describes its treatment program for a particular disease.  At the end of the page, it includes a section of links to other web sites titled “More Information.”  These links include links to other hospitals that have treatment programs for this disease, research organizations seeking cures for that disease, and articles about treatment programs.  This section includes a link to an article on the web site of O, a major national newspaper, praising Hospital N’s treatment program for the disease.  The page containing the article on O’s web site contains no reference to any candidate or election and has no direct links to candidate or election information.  Elsewhere on O’s web site, there is a page displaying editorials that O has published.  Several of the editorials endorse candidates in an election that has not yet occurred.   Hospital N has not intervened in a political campaign by maintaining the link to the article on O’s web site because the link is provided for the exempt purpose of educating the public about Hospital N’s programs and neither the context for the link, nor the relationship between Hospital N and O nor the arrangement of the links going from Hospital N’s web site to the endorsement on O’s web site indicate that Hospital N was favoring or opposing any candidate.

Example  21: Church P, a section 501(c)(3) organization, maintains a web site that includes such information as biographies of its ministers, times of services, details of community outreach programs, and activities of members of its congregation.  B, a member of the congregation of Church P, is running for a seat on the town council.  Shortly before the election, Church P posts the following message on its web site, “Lend your support to B, your fellow parishioner, in Tuesday’s election for town council.”  Church P has intervened in a political campaign on behalf of B.


Effect of Conducting Multiple Activities
Although each of the activities described in this fact sheet is described separately, an organization might combine one or more of the types of activity described above.  For example, an organization leader may speak about an issue at an event where a candidate appears, or a voter guide might be distributed at a candidate forum.  Where there is a combination of activities, the interaction among them may affect whether or not the organization is engaged in political campaign intervention.
 
Related Item: IR-2006-36 IRS Releases New Guidance and Results of Political Intervention Examination

 

Rev. Rul. 86-95, 1986-2 C.B. 73 Exemption; public forums; congressional candidates. The conduct of public forums involving qualified congressionalcandidates in the manner described, by an organization otherwise exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Code, will not constitute participation or intervention in any political campaign within the meaning of section 501(c)(3).

Rev. Rul. 66-256 amplified. ISSUE Would the conduct of public forums involving qualifiedcongressional candidates by an organization otherwise described in section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, in the manner described below, constitute participation or intervention in any political campaign within the meaning of section 501(c)(3)? FACTS The organization is an educational membership organization exempt from federal income tax under section 501(c)(3) of the Code. As one of its programs, the organization monitors and reports on legislative, judicial, administrative, and other governmental activities and developments considered to be ofimportant interest to its members. The organization proposes to conduct a series of publicforums. These forums will be conducted in congressional districts during congressional election campaigns. All legally qualifiedcandidates for the House of Representatives from the congressional districts in question will be invited to participate in a forum. The agenda at each of the forums will cover a broad range ofissues, including, but not limited to, those issues considered to be of important educational interest to the organization'smembers. Questions to forum participants will be prepared and presented by a nonpartisan, independent panel of knowledgeable persons composed of representatives of the media, educationalorganizations, community leaders, and other interested persons. Each candidate will be allowed an equal opportunity to present his or her views on each of the issues discussed. The organization will select a moderator for each forum whose sole function will be limited to assuring that the general ground rules are followed. At both the beginning and end of each forum, the moderator will state that the views expressed are those of the candidates and not those of the organization and that the sponsorship of the forum is not intended as an endorsement of any candidate.

LAW AND ANALYSIS Section 501(c)(3) of the Code provides for the exemption from federal income tax of organizations organized and operatedexclusively for charitable or educational purposes, no substantial part of the activities of which is carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting to influence legislation, (except as otherwise provided in section 501(h)), and which do not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing ordistributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of any candidate for public office.

Section 1.501(c)(3)-1(c)(3)(i) of the Income Tax Regulationsstates that an organization is not operated exclusively for one or more exempt purposes if it is an "action" organization. Section 1.501(c)(3)-1(c)(3)(iii) defines an "action" organization as an organization that participates or intervenes, directly or indirectly, in any political campaign on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for public office. The regulationsfurther provide that activities that constitute participation or intervention in a political campaign on behalf of or in opposition to a candidate include, but are not limited to, the publication or distribution of written statements or the making of oral statements on behalf of or in opposition to such a candidate.

Rev. Rul. 66-256, 1966-2 C.B. 210, holds that a nonprofit organization formed to conduct public forums at which lectures and debates on social, political, and international matters are presented qualifies for exemption from federal income tax under section 501(c)(3) of the Code.

Rev. Rul. 74-574, 1974-2 C.B. 160, holds that a section 501(c)(3) organization operating a broadcast station is not participating in political campaigns on behalf of publiccandidates by providing reasonable amounts of air time equally available to all legally qualified candidates for election to public office in compliance with the reasonable access provisions of the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. Sec. 312(a)(7),(1982). Whether an organization is participating or intervening,directly or indirectly, in any political campaign on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for public office depends upon all of the facts and circumstances of each case. For example, certain "voter education" activities conducted in a non-partisan manner may not constitute prohibited political activities under section 501(c)(3) of the Code. Other so-called "voter education" activities may be proscribed by the statute.

Rev. Rul. 78-248, 1978-1 C.B. 154, contrasts several situations illustrating when an organization that publishes a compilation of a candidate's position or voting record has or has not engaged in prohibited political activities based on whether the questionnaire or voting guide in content or structure shows a bias or preference with respect to the views of a particular candidate. See also Rev. Rul. 80-282, 1980-2 C.B. 178, that amplified Rev. Rul. 78-248 regarding the timing and distribution of voter education materials. The presentation of public forums or debates is a recognized method of educating the public. See Rev. Rul. 66-256. Providing a forum for candidates is not, in and of itself, prohibited political activity. See Rev. Rul. 74-574. However, a forum for candidates could be operated in a manner that would show a bias or preference for or against a particular candidate. This could be done, for example, through biased questioning procedures. On the other hand, a forum held for the purpose of educating and informing the voters, which provides fair and impartial treatment of candidates, and which does not promote or advance one candidate over another, would not constitute participation or intervention in any political campaign on behalf of or in opposition to anycandidate for public office. The facts and circumstances of this case establish that both the format and content of the proposed forums will be presented in a neutral manner. All legally qualified congressional candidateswill be invited to participate in the forum. The questions willbe prepared and presented by a nonpartisan, independent panel. The topics discussed will cover a broad range of issues of interest to the public, notwithstanding that the issues discussed may include issues of particular importance to the organization's members. Each candidate will receive an equal opportunity to present his or her views on each of the issues discussed. Finally, the moderator selected by the organization will notcomment on the questions or otherwise make comments that imply approval or disapproval of any of the candidates. In view of these facts, the organization will not be considered to be engaged in prohibited political activity. This conclusion is based on the totality of the circumstances described. The presence or absence of a particular fact here in other similar situations is not determinative of other cases but would have to be considered in light of all the surrounding factors in that case. HOLDING The conduct of public forums involving qualifiedcongressional candidates in the manner described above, by an organization otherwise described in section 501(c)(3) of the Code, will not constitute participation or intervention in any political campaign within the meaning of section 501(c)(3). EFFECT ON OTHER REVENUE RULINGS Rev. Rul. 66-256 is amplified. 
 

18 U.S. Code § 1001  (a) (2) (3) False statements of fact

 

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—

(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;

(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or

(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;

shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years

 

·         Defamation per se

 

 

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.  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]  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.

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

 



 

PUBLIC MEDIA IGNORES ELECTION LAWS SURROUNDING PARTICIPATING IN ELECTIONS IN WAYS THAT DO NOT DAMAGE A CANDIDATE’S CAMPAIGN

 

WYPR repeatedly stated there was no candidate for governor from Baltimore----which I am that candidate----they said at every turn that there were only 3 democratic candidates for governor-----and one staff literally stated after a first poll showed 55% of democratic voters and 70% of republican voters 'undecided' that if voters did not like the candidates being put forward by media then 'do not vote'.  Malice is not strong enough…..this media outlet has distain for the rights of candidates and voters to free and fair elections.

Cindy Walsh for Governor of Maryland communicated several times with WYPR Radio about lack of coverage of my campaign and the failure to include me in all commentary including lists of Democratic Primary candidates for Governor of Maryland.  I was told that they would select whom they would have on programming.  I received no response to my numerous attempts at communication to many of the hosts of programs on WYPR.
Public media and any 501c3 organization have a special obligation to meet the standards of participating in elections in a way that does not damage a candidate's campaign.  While a candidate cannot require equal coverage, they can require adequate access to give the candidate exposure and the public have access to all political platforms in a political race.  It is the 501c3 organizations that balance the private money-driven market of campaign advertising and it is critical that these outlets be held to Rule of Law.

If a candidate has no media exposure at the beginning of the primary that candidate will not poll, he/she will not have name recognition on the ballot, and the public will not know what platforms are available once in the election booth.  When a public media outlet denies access to media coverage throughout the primary and then comes to the candidate with offers of coverage just weeks before the primary -----the damage to that candidate's campaign is done.  Research shows that people have made their choices weeks before an election and in Maryland, voters cannot change political parties after June 3, 2014.

It is critical that 501c3s be held to inclusion of all candidates in coverage from the beginning of the primary.  To allow programming to exclude early in the primary with the intent to include later in the primary damages that candidate’s ability to raise campaign funds, endorsements, name recognition, polling, and ability to create the network needed to get out the vote.

This complaint is against all public media in the state of Maryland.  We have non-profit news journals, radio, and online postings through vehicles like You Tube, Facebook, and website postings that all need to follow the election law of inclusion of all candidates in a political race.  Whereas FCC laws may not follow private media to the internet-----IRS election law does follow 501c3 media outlets to the internet.

 

WYPR Radio ----Johns Hopkins University

Election 2014 11:00 am Thu May 22, 2014 Gubernatorial Candidate Survey

 By WYPR Staff   

Over the next few months, Maryland voters will decide who will replace Gov. Martin O'Malley in the governor’s mansion. From the state’s energy future to the struggle to create quality jobs, the next governor will make key decisions on a range of issues facing the Free State.
WYPR asked all of the Democratic and Republican gubernatorial candidates to respond to five questions the next governor will confront.

Clockwise from top left: Lt. Gov. Anthony Brown, Attorney General Doug Gansler, Del. Heather Mizeur, Larry Hogan, Del. Ron George, Harford County Executive David Craig, Charles Lollar

Credit Photos courtesy of Maryland State Government and campaigns


Maryland’s primary election will take place June 24. Early voting begins June 12 and ends June 19. The general election will take place November 4.

Click on the candidate's name to read their response.

1) What is the most important issue the next governor of Maryland will deal with in his/her first term?

The Democrats:  Anthony Brown, Doug Gansler, Heather Mizeur
The Republicans:  David Craig, Ron George, Larry Hogan, Charles Lollar

 

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



WYPR News 9:38 am Thu May 8, 2014

At Debate, Brown And Gansler Spar While Mizeur Outlines Plans
 By Christopher Connelly Originally published on Mon May 12, 2014 12:43 pm

Maryland Democratic gubernatorial candidates Doug Gansler, Heather Mizeur and Anthony Brown.Credit Washington Post pool photo

Maryland’s Democratic gubernatorial candidates squared off Wednesday in the first debate of the season.  Lieutenant Governor Anthony Brown, Attorney General Doug Gansler, and Delegate Heather Mizeur took to the stage at the University of Maryland- College Park. It was the first chance for voters to see and hear the candidates lay out their pitch for why they should be their party's pick to run the state. You can listen to a recap of the debate below.

Listen 4:15 WYPR's Christopher Connelly recaps the May 7 Democratic gubernatorial debate.
Or read a transcript of the debate here.

We'll add a link to video of the debate when it becomes available.


Tags:  WYPR News





************************************************************
Maryland Morning WYPR Public Radio -----Johns Hopkins University 12:02 pm Fri May 9, 2014 The 2014 Democratic Candidates for Governor By Sheilah Kast & Matt Purdy

From left to right: Anthony Brown, Doug Gansler, Heather Mizeur

Listen

37:22

The 2014 Democratic candidates for Governor.

Maryland’s primary election will take place June 24th. This is a special podcast we’ve put together with all of Maryland Morning's interviews with the candidates vying for the Democratic nomination for Governor. We’ve arranged them in alphabetical order. The total run time is about 37 minutes.

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

Me

To fsmith@wypr.orgnewsroom@wjz.comnewstips@wbaltv.com and 9 More...

Feb 25

Regarding the Cindy Walsh for Governor of Maryland announcement:

I am requesting from all of WYPR shows and commentators that I want to come to speak about my political platform. I hope to speak with Maryland Morning Sheila Kast, Dan Rodricks' and Fraser Smith about my candidacy as democratic candidate for governor.

Me

To bienstock@wypr.org

Feb 25

Regarding the Cindy Walsh for Governor of Maryland announcement:

I am requesting from all of WYPR shows and commentators that I want to come to speak about my political platform. I hope to speak with Maryland Morning Sheila Kast, Dan Rodricks' and Fraser Smith about my candidacy as democratic candidate for governor.

Me

To midday@wypr.org

Feb 25

Regarding the Cindy Walsh for Governor of Maryland announcement:

I am requesting from all of WYPR shows and commentators that I want to come to speak about my political platform. I hope to speak with Maryland Morning Sheila Kast, Dan Rodricks' and Fraser Smith about my candidacy as democratic candidate for governor.



Me

To MdMorning@wypr.org

Feb 25

Regarding the Cindy Walsh for Governor of Maryland announcement:

I am requesting from all of WYPR shows and commentators that I want to come to speak about my political platform. I hope to speak with Maryland Morning Sheila Kast, Dan Rodricks' and Fraser Smith about my candidacy as democratic candidate for governor.



Me

To newsroom@wjz.comnewstips@wbaltv.comhooper@wmar.comdan.rodricks@baltsun.com
Suzanne.Huettner@TheDailyRecord.compearlstein@washpost.comecanzian@baltsun.com
Len@MarylandReporter.comfwachter@mpt.orgjbriggs@bizjournals.comfoxnewstips@foxnews.com

Mar 27

cindy Walsh has been a candidate for Governor of Maryland for 30 days now with no mention in the media and I am waiting for time on station programming to share my platform at both the city and state levels.  Please contact me with a date for such an engagement.

 

Thank you,

 

Cindy Walsh

 

 

 

RESPONSE TO THE GAZETTE NEWSPAPER IN MONTGOMERY COUNTY

Cindy Walsh for Governor of Maryland would love to answer your questions. I sent a copy of my campaign platform and personal information and now will answer questions: ………………..

 

 

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

 

Me

To fsmith@wypr.orgnewsroom@wjz.comnewstips@wbaltv.comhooper@wmar.com
dan.rodricks@baltsun.compearlstein@washpost.comfwachter@mpt.org
foxnewstips@foxnews.comtrif.alatzas@baltsun.com

May 1

 

We are in the last two months of the primary elections for 2014 and Cindy Walsh for Governor of Maryland has been mentioned a few times----never by name and yet I am just 10% away from being tied with the 'front-runners' with several months of media saturation.  Brown 25%, Gansler and Mizeur around 10% with over 54% undecided democratic voters.  Imagine if Cindy Walsh had received a fraction of that media coverage-----there is the platform 54% of democrats seek!  More would come.

Baltimore Sun and its many local news journals have never mentioned Cindy Walsh the candidate for Governor.  WYPR has mentioned her a few times as 'one of two other candidates' but now only act if 3 candidates are in the democratic race.  I searched Maryland Public Television----bastion of free and fair elections in Maryland and not a word.  I am not on the list of Governor's candidates in Baltimore Sun or MPT.  Morgan State and WEAA with Marc Steiner has not mentioned my campaign nor had me on.

Dan Rodricks had a show on the governor's race and all of the callers stated they did not want Brown or Ganser but someone 'like' Mizeur.  That is of course----Cindy Walsh for Governor of Maryland.

No Baltimore news program taped and aired the Montgomery County forums that had the one candidate from Baltimore included in the forum.  Having a candidate from Baltimore running in this governor's race is never mentioned.  I am 10% away from being a 'front-runner'  and 30% from winning the election and you will not hear it in Maryland media.

So, Cindy Walsh for Governor of Maryland has a Federal Election Commission complaint and will pursue this in court.  The citizens of Maryland will rebuild free and fair elections in Maryland!

Cindy Walsh

Me

To newsroom@wjz.comnewstips@wbaltv.comhooper@wmar.combienstock@wypr.org
pearlstein@washpost.comfwachter@mpt.orgjbriggs@bizjournals.comfoxnewstips@foxnews.com
trif.alatzas@baltsun.comsteinershow@gmail.com

May 7


As Cindy Walsh for Governor of Maryland moves to the FEC for election violations----public media still call 10% of polling making candidates 'front-runners' deserving all media attention!



May 6, 2014

To: Dr. Wallace Loh----- University of Maryland College Park
Dr. Ronald Daniels ---- Johns Hopkins University
Dr. David Wilson ----- Morgan State University
Dr. Mortimer Neufville ----- Coppin State University

From: Cindy Walsh for Governor of Maryland democratic primary
2522 N Calvert St.
Baltimore, Maryland 21218
443-825-7031

RE: Flagrant violations of Federal Election laws must stop

I am including a note to all of you so all can see how deeply flawed our election system is in Maryland. The citizens of Maryland have had enough and are demanding Rule of Law and respect of election law that allows all candidates in a race to be heard especially when 501c3/4 organizations are involved. Everyone understands the open invitation rule and most organizations in Maryland follow it, but for some reason, the very institutions that once held free and fair elections sacred and served as a political forum for all have chosen to be the source of election capture. I demand that the change happen now as my campaign want a voice in these last several weeks of this primary!

Dr. Loh --------President of University of Maryland College Park

Hello,

This is Cindy Walsh for Governor of Maryland on the democratic ticket. The one you did not include in this forum. As a 501c3/4 organization you are required to extend an invitation to all candidates in a race and to fail to do so is deliberate intent to damage the campaign of others running. Everyone knows that with a polling of around 10% of democratic voters supporting Gansler and Mizeur we have no 'front-runners' and indeed if my platform was heard the 54% of undecided will have found their candidate----or already have.

The public university is the bedrock of political debate and discussion. If you as President deliberately seek to silence a candidate because of political views you do not support you are failing as head of a public university. My candidacy is real------I am qualified and more capable than any of the candidates you 'selected' to appear. You have a responsibility as an education leader to uphold election law and allow all voices to be heard at all times but especially at election primaries and general elections. I am pursuing the failure of 501c3/4 in Maryland to meet the election law requirement of doing no harm to election campaigns and these events are front and center.

I demand that Cindy Walsh for Governor of Maryland be one of the participants in these forums. I wish acknowledgement and will be attending Wednesday's forum!

Thank you,

Cindy Walsh

Me

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

 

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

May 18

THIS DISCUSSION ON ELECTIONS IS RELEVANT TO ALL STATES IN THE US BECAUSE THIS IS HAPPENING IN YOUR NECK OF THE WOODS.

Who is your pol pledging allegiance to in a corporate state? Maryland is becoming a corporate state.
SEC. 9. Every person elected, or appointed, to any office of profit or trust, under this Constitution, or under the Laws, made pursuant thereto, shall, before he enters upon the duties of such office, take and subscribe the following oath, or affirmation: I, _______________, do swear, (or affirm, as the case may be,) that I will support the Constitution of the United States; and that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to the State of Maryland, and support the Constitution and Laws thereof; and that I will, to the best of my skill and judgment, diligently and faithfully, without partiality or prejudice, execute the office of________________, according to the Constitution and Laws of this State, (and, if a Governor, Senator, Member of the House of Delegates, or Judge,) that I will not directly or indirectly, receive the profits or any part of the profits of any other office during the term of my acting as___________ (originally Article I, sec. 6, renumbered by Chapter 681, Acts of 1977, ratified Nov. 7, 1978).

I am pleased to be invited and participate in events all across Maryland because people do know election law and follow it. When the larger venues openly flaunt the law----it is a step to break down the process because of course if breaking the law is allowed----no one follows the law....which is the point. If public media and public universities are allowed to break law why should the smaller 501c3/4 follow law? If the Maryland Attorney General tasked with enforcing election law actively participates in a process he knows is breaking the law----

WE NO LONGER HAVE EQUAL PROTECTION AND RULE OF LAW.

Me

The time is now to stop the election rigging in Maryland. Crony party politics and media collusion will end.

 

 

To fsmith@wypr.orgnewsroom@wjz.comnewstips@wbaltv.comhooper@wmar.com
dan.rodricks@baltsun.combienstock@wypr.orgSuzanne.Huettner@TheDailyRecord.com
steinershow@gmail.compearlstein@washpost.comLen@MarylandReporter.com
jbriggs@bizjournals.comfwachter@mpt.orgfoxnewstips@foxnews.com
editors@baltimorebrew.comtrif.alatzas@baltsun.com

Jun 19

 

Hello WYPR and WBAL-TV, et al.

This is Cindy Walsh for Governor of Maryland on the democratic ticket reminding you once again that media are required to do no damage to any one candidate in an election race -----I listened this week and again heard all four republican candidates listed but only 3 democratic candidates.

Fraser Smith had a reporter on his commentary that actually did some investigative journalism.  She reported that over 630,000 voters had changed their party affiliation to independent this past year and you know why? The citizens of Maryland are fed up with the election rigging and party cronyism in this state.  There will be change.

I look forward to being on all of your media outlets over the coming general election.

Thank you,

Cindy Walsh




Election 2014 7:14 am Tue June 3, 2014
Democratic Candidates For Governor Slam Each Other In Final TV Debate
 By Christopher Connelly  WYPR

Democratic gubernatorial candidates, from left: Lt. Gov. Anthony Brown, Del. Heather Mizeur (Montgomery County), and Maryland Attorney General Doug Gansler.

Credit Courtesy of Maryland Public Television Listen 4:13 WYPR's Nathan Sterner talks with politics reporter Christopher Connelly about Monday's Democratic gubernatorial debate.   The governor’s race on the democratic side has gotten progressively more heated, and more negative. And the final TV debate before the June 24 primary featured a fair amount of mud slinging.  Lt. Gov. Anthony Brown, Attorney General Doug Gansler and Del. Heather Mizeur faced off Monday night in front of an audience of undecided voters.

Gansler went after Brown for his role in the failed health exchange website, as he’s done before. Brown went after Gansler for his more limited approach to early childhood education – something he’s done before.

Del. Heather Mizeur even took some swipes at her opponents, making a more forceful showing than at the first debate, when she took a high-road approach that positioned her as the “adult in the room” but also led her to be overshadowed when she tried to keep herself above the Brown-Gansler back and forth.

On Maryland’s flawed health exchange website

Brown gave perhaps his clearest accounting for his role in setting up the state’s buggy online insurance marketplace, which is being scrapped and replaced. MPT’s Jeff Salkin asked Brown to rate his responsibility for the site, and Brown said his role was as the chairman of the committee charged with rolling out all facets of the Affordable Care Act. He says he was not directly overseeing the website, and said he did not know about the problems with the website until after October 1, when the site launched …and then crashed.

“As soon as we got the information, then we brought the exchange in and said OK we’ve got some things that you need to do – reorganize the leadership, refocus the vendors, get rid of the ones that aren’t working,” Brown said.

Gansler pointed to the exchange as evidence that Brown is not capable of leading, and he said that the solution to the problem – using Connecticut’s software to replace our own, at a cost of $40 to $50 million – is also problematic because decision was made in a closed door meeting. He said he thought the fix may be another costly band-aid that does not work.

Mizeur touted her record in the legislature pushing to expand access to care, even before the ACA. And she said that implementation is at least as important as getting the legislation passed.

On early childhood education plans

All three candidates call their plans pathways to universal pre-k. They all point to inequities of outcomes in the schools -- disparities tied to geography, socio-economic status and race -- but they differed on how to pay for expanding preschool.

Heather Mizeur has what she calls the most comprehensive plan to expand not just full-time pre-school to all of the state’s 4-year-olds, but also half-day programs for 3-year-olds and childcare for working moms with younger children.

Tax revenues from legalized marijuana would pay for the expansion under Montgomery County delegate’s plan. Legalizing recreational pot is also a way to tackle what she says is a failed war on drugs that leaves people of color disproportionately incarcerated, law enforcement distracted, and a shadow economy that supports organized crime intact. 

Brown has proposed using expanded gaming revenues to fund a build up to universal pre-K access. He pointed to moves already taken in this year’s budget, which includes an additional $4.3 million that will pay for about 1,600 disadvantaged 4-year-olds to enroll in programs.

Gansler’s plan also calls for using gaming revenue to expand access to pre-K programs, but takes a more gradual approach. He says it would target funding to low-income minority and rural communities where the achievement gap is greatest.

“And the fact of the matter is it would be irresponsible to say we’re going do it tomorrow; we can’t afford it,” Gansler said. “We need to start with the underserved communities and expand it to everybody.”

The lieutenant governor has attacked Gansler cried foul on allegations Brown has made in mailings, a TV ad, and at the last debate that his more gradual plan to expand pre-K amounts to selling kids short.

On taxes and the economy

But perhaps the most sparring took place when the candidates turned to the economy. The candidates sparred over taxes and the state of Maryland’s economy, as well. Brown portrayed the economy in Maryland as strong, but not perfect.

He framed Gansler’s plan to reduce the corporate income tax as a misguided giveaway to corporations, an allegation Gansler rejected by pointing to his plan to close a corporate tax loophole that he’d close to bring in to make big multinational corporations pay their fair share.

Gansler, in turn, said Brown is the one guilty of selling out to corporations. Brown received significant contributions, he said, from health care companies when he was supposed to be running the health exchange, which he said was indicative of a culture in Annapolis responsive to lobbyists and not citizens.

“We need to have Annapolis go back to the people of the state, to work for the people of the state, work for families, and no longer be ruled by the special interests.”

That gave Del. Heather Mizeur an opening to point out that she’s the only one in the race running campaign that is publicly financed.

“We’re not taking corporate cash, we’re not soliciting lobbyists and taking state contractor money,” Mizeur said. “Our campaign is funded by the voters.”

Mizeur talked up her plan to raise the state’s minimum wage to a living wage, and balancing that with a reduction in taxes on small businesses leveraged by closing the same corporate tax loophole Gansler has said he’d close. She said the state should not have let the so-called millionaires tax expire in 2010, and decried legislation passed this year limiting the number of people who will pay the estate tax as a giveaway to the state’s wealthiest residents.

In a rare break from the policies of Gov. Martin O’Malley, Brown also came out against the change to the estate tax. “I would have said to the General Assembly don’t send me tax relief for the 1,000 wealthiest Marylanders until we look at tax reform for all Marylanders.”

On the health of the Chesapeake Bay and the environment

Heather Mizeur has claimed the mantle as the environmentalist choice in the Democratic primary. She promised to “put oil and gas companies on notice” and reiterated her opposition to allowing hydraulic fracturing in Western Maryland and an expansion of the Cove Point natural gas facility on the Eastern Shore. And she laid out her plan to improve the Chesapeake that includes restoring oyster populations  and curtailing pesticide and fertilizer runoff.

“We all should be frustrated when pregnant women are being advised by their physicians not to swim in the Bay because of the impact it could have on their pregnancy,” she said.

But Gansler, in turn, sought to prove himself the right choice for environmentalists. He pointed to his own tenure as the state’s attorney general, which saw landmark rulings on cross-border pollution. He said the health of the bay has been his “top priority” over the last eight years he’s held the office, and says he’s spearheaded a “change the culture in terms of enforcement.

Brown pegged his environmental cred to the environmental policies pursued by the O’Malley administration over the last seven years, and touted an expansion of open space, more cover crops to soak up nutrient runoff before it reaches the watershed, and improvements to wastewater infrastructure.

“We’ve made a lot of progress but we’ve still got work to do,” Brown said.

The candidates will meet one more time before the June 24 primary for a radio debate later this week.

You can watch the full debate from our colleagues at Maryland Public Television below.

Tags:  wypr news Election 2014 politics Heather Mizeur Anthony Brown Doug Gansler









WYPR FM Radio Station Information (FCC)

This "Public Radio" radio station is licensed by the FCC to WYPR LICENSE HOLDING LLC in Baltimore, Maryland


Callsign: WYPR
Service Class: FM
Frequency: 88.1 MHz
FCC File #: BLED-20080111AEE
Power (H): 15,500 Watts / Power (V): 15.5 kW
Height Above Average Terrain: 425 ft. or 129.6 m.
Antenna Radiation Center...
Above Ground Level: 300 ft. or 91.4 m.
Above Median Sea Level: 705 ft. or 214.9 m.
Antenna Structure Registration #: 1022765
Application ID: 1234001

Latitude: 39.331402
Longitude: -76.657799

 

WYPO FM Radio Station Information (FCC)

This "Public Radio" radio station is licensed by the FCC to WYPR LICENSE HOLDING LLC in Ocean City, Maryland,


Callsign: WYPO
Service Class: FM
Frequency: 106.9 MHz
FCC File #: BMLED-20070803ABU
Power (H): 4,500 Watts / Power (V): 4.5 kW
Height Above Average Terrain: 384 ft. or 117.0 m.
Antenna Radiation Center...
Above Ground Level: 374 ft. or 114.0 m.
Above Median Sea Level: 397 ft. or 121.0 m.
Antenna Structure Registration #: 1227587
Application ID: 1198555

Latitude: 38.327499
Longitude: -75.197197

WYPO FCC Facility Location:
#39 THISTLE LANE/BETHANY MEADOWS #39 THISTLE LANE/BETHANY MEADOWS, FRANKFORD, DE 19945

WYPF-FM 88.1 MHz
Frederick, Maryland
This "Public Radio" radio station is licensed by the FCC to WYPR LICENSE HOLDING LLC in Baltimore, Maryland


 

 

Station Format: Public Radio



 

Website:
http://www.wypr.org/

Audio Feed:
http://live.str3am.com:2410/wypr.m3u

Station Owner:
Your Public Radio Corporation
find stations owned by Your Public Radio Corporation
this feature is only available to Gold Customers

Station Address:
P.O. BOX 205
Braddock Heights, MD 21714

 

WYPF-FM Technical Info:

Station Status 

Licensed Class B1 Non-Commercial FM Station

Area of Coverage 

View Coverage Map

Effective Radiated Power 

1000 Watts

Height above Avg. Terrain 

339.7 meters (1115 feet)

Height above Ground Level 

49 meters (161 feet)

Height above Sea Level 

559 meters (1834 feet)

Antenna Pattern 

Directional

Transmitter Location 

39° 29' 31" N,  77° 30' -0" W

License Granted 

February 03 2006

License Expires 

October 01 2019

Last FCC Update 

February 03 2006