Contributor Opinion By David Spitzer: A Response to Richard Arkin
Sep 9, 2010 8:00 - 3 Comments
This Contributor Opinion is by David Spitzer.
As Cheryl Kagan’s husband and campaign treasurer, I obviously have an interest in Richard Arkin’s recent attack on my wife, which he presents as an objective report on the District 17 State Senate race. He criticizes another reader for not providing details on his inaccuracies, claiming “The piece was very carefully researched and I stand by what I wrote.” Unfortunately, his research either was not done carefully, or he is deliberately shading his results. Let me point out a few of his misleading statements (in detail).
He refers approvingly to Jennie’s mailings in which she claims credit for bringing projects to the district. If he had done research, he would have discovered the fallacies buried in those claims. One mailing stated that “Senator Forehand and the Team were able to fund over $100 million worth of projects in Montgomery County.” This makes it appear that the projects were the direct result of their efforts and assumes that the community approved of the results. But over half the amount ($55 million) is for the enormous and controversial District Courthouse looming over the South Washington St. historic district, much to the dismay of its neighbors.
How about funding of the Rockville Civic Center Park? That was a team effort, but guess who was on the team when the $300,000 was approved in 1997? Cheryl Kagan, when she represented our community as Delegate (LINK).
There are projects included in the same mailing that were not in fact sponsored by the District 17 team. For example, the bond bill for Katherine Thomas High School was sponsored by Senators Hogan and Garagiola and the lead sponsor in the House was then-Delegate Nancy King. (LINK).
As for the amount of financial support garnered by the two campaigns, Mr. Arkin states that, “Jennie has worked more quietly and has raised almost as much money as Cheryl, primarily from Maryland contributors.” But if you compare the Campaign Finance Reports for each candidate (available here), you will find a different story. (By the way, the information is available in simple spreadsheets; there are not, as Mr. Arkin complains, hundreds of pages of data to wade through.)
In the current election cycle (2007-2010), 38.87% of the $87,441.26 Jennie raised came from individuals, whereas for Cheryl, individuals accounted for 79.27% of the $142,429.82 raised, indicating much broader, grass-roots support (88%, if you remove in-kind donations). Jennie has made up for part of her lack of individual support with PAC and corporate money, raising $40,750 that way, compared to Cheryl’s $12,661. Also on fund raising, Jennie has reported over $35,000 in anonymous “lump sum” amounts over the years, hiding the sources (and agendas) of those contributing (LINK).
One more fund raising point needs to be considered. In the 8/31/10 debate at the Rockville Library, Jennie stated “… A lot of people have given me $5 or $10…” (LINK) If you examine Forehand’s finance reports for the 2007-2010 election cycle, there are only 5 donations by individuals of less than $20 listed compared to 53 donations in that same range for Cheryl. Which candidate has shown, again using Jennie’s words from the debate, “real grass roots support”?
So Jennie has not been forthright in her advertising and campaign reports, and Mr. Arkin has accepted her inaccuracies as fact. That doesn’t seem very careful to me. I prefer to back up my statements with data that can be verified.
David Spitzer
This is a Contributor Opinion. Rockville Central encourages readers to submit such pieces for consideration — the more voices the better. Simply send them to [email protected]. We ask that all such contributions be civil and we reserve the right to edit (in consultation with the author) or reject. Contributor opinions should not be seen as reflecting opinions held by Rockville Central editors, as they are just as frequently at odds with our own views. That’s the whole point!
Please also note that Rockville Central does not endorse candidates in election campaigns. Supporters of all candidates are encouraged to submit opinion pieces for consideration.
David, thanks for the add’l insight on the money aspect fo this campaign. The links are helpful. Can you shed any insight on breakdown of money that comes from the unions in MC? Both candidates are quick to point out endorsements, I would like to see how that translates into union donations. Thank you!
David Spitzer’s response would be more interesting to me if he actually responded to Richard Arkin’s complaints against Cheryl Kagan. Spitzer does not actually refute any of Arkin’s allegations.
http://rockvillecentral.com/2010/09/contributor-opinion-by-richard-arkin-kagan-goes-negative.html/
I do not have a strong opinion about either candidate, and Spitzer’s article did not change that.
Each of the points made by David Spitzer, Cheryl Kagan’s husband and campaign treasurer, is, as might be expected, quite shaded. What he says about each of them tells only a part of the story. I will respond to his points because they were directed at me. However, please keep in mind that I am speaking only for myself and that I am NOT affiliated in any way with Jennie’s campaign (or any other campaign in this election cycle, for that matter).
1. An appropriation for a new District Courthouse in Rockville to replace the aging and worn-out existing courthouse (which probably would have been renovated for some other public purpose after the court vacated the building) was very popular when the appropriation passed. Most of the controversy over the location of the District Courthouse took place after the money (which you say was over $55 million) was appropriated. The appropriation was made with the complete support of then-Rockville Mayor Larry Giamo and the Rockville City Council, as well as the County Executive and the County Council. In fact, it was horsetrading between the county and city that provided funding not only for a new District Courthouse, but also for moving the Rockville library to its Town Center site in order to free up the library site for the courthouse.
2. Bills to fund the F, Scott Fitzgerald Theatre/Rockville Civic Center Park complex were crossfiled (identical bills filed in both houses of the General Assembly are referred to as cross-filed bills). The bill you cite was filed in the House by the Montgomery County Delegation. An identical bill, SB 375, was filed by Senator Forehand and then-Sen. Len Teitelbaum. When filed, they would have done the same thing, but the one that was passed and signed by the Governor was the House bill, which, after amendments in the House, ended up providing less money ($300,000 rather than $375,000) than Jennie and Len’s Senate bill would have provided, and also had more strings attached (granting of an easement to the Maryland Historic Trust). Jennie, Len, Kumar Barve, Mike Gordon, and Cheryl can all take credit for the bill’s passage.
3. David says that Jennie was not the lead sponsor for all of the projects she helped bring to Montgomery County, such as the bond bill for Katherine Thomas High School. However, she was certainly a part of the county General Assembly team that pushed projects such as this through the legislature and was the lead sponsor for most of the District 17 projects. However, what David says brings up other questions. Here’s one: Cheryl claims credit for revitalization of Rockville Town Center and Gaithersburg’s Olde Towne. I would appreciate it if David would ask Cheryl to tell us what funding for these projects she provided and why she deserves credit for the two downtown projects rather than Rockville and Gaithersburg’s Mayors and City Councils.
4. The link that David gives takes the reader to the Maryland Elections Center Campaign Finance website, which allows the reader “to look at general overviews of contributions and expenditures by issue and candidate committees, slates, and parties,” and “view information regarding the contributions made by individuals, PACs, and organizations.” It also permits “more specific searches” of the hundreds of pages of campaign finance entries through its Advanced Search page, and “finance reports submitted by a committee, as well as the leadership and contract information for that committee.” The site also allows spreadsheet information to be downloaded tdhat a reader who has spreadsheet software can use for searches with additional search criteria.
I am not an accountant, campaign treasurer, or computer whiz, but what the searches I made show is that out-of-state contributions to Cheryl’s campaign came to $55,659 of the total of $233,733 she has raised so far. In contrast, Jennie received only $15,675 in out-of-state contributions of her total contributions of $246,367.84 (more than Cheryl).
The searches show that Jennie reported $14,085 in small contributions (less than $51) that Jennie has reported as a lump sum. Cheryl has made quite a fuss about that. However, the searches also show Cheryl reporting $25,338.19 in “other income,” from a CD she cashed out that was bought with money she has not disclosed in this report. I think that’s pretty interesting.
What David has really illustrated by flooding us with numbers is that data can be easily manipulated. Beyond that, I don’t think that his figures mean very much.