Delegates Schuh, King Defend Special Session Votes & Citizens For Government PAC
Scheduled to speak at the Wednesday Morning Republican Breakfast Club today were Delegates Nic Kipke, Steve Schuh, and James King. Delegates Schuh and King showed up, and they might be wishing they hadn't.
The first topic of discussion was the special session. The delegates gave a brief summary of their perception of the session and its consequences, but then both decided to bring up their controversial votes in anticipation of having to defend their positions.
Schuh talked about his vote in favor of the $500 million (multi-hundreds of millions, anyway) expansion of medicaid. (I didn't know this, and now that the session is over it is a bit harder to find out. The general session took down its special session page, and neither myself nor The Main Adversary could figure out where to look. I think it's HB-6.) Schuh remarked that people making $20,000 for a family of 4 need to be in the public system, because there is no way the private market can make health insurance cheap enough for such a family to afford.
But there was no time to debate this! The meeting was only for an hour, and there were more pressing issues. Delegate King explained his vote on slots, elaborating that he made his support of a slots referendum known from day 1. He claims that over 80% of Marylanders support having a voice on the matter, and that giving them that voice was the right thing to do, even if the difficult thing. I will quote him as accurately as I remember:
Sometimes the legislature comes to an impasse on an issue, and can't figure out
what to do. When this happens, the public gets fed up, and demands a say
on the matter. Republicans supported a constitutional amendment 3 years
ago for defining marriage, and I think we need consistency of practices,
otherwise we are no better than them (Democrats).
The highly up-to-speed audience jumped on him immediately for this. Regardless of one's position on slots, they argued, having such narrowly focused language in the state constitution was inappropriate. Marriage is fundamental enough to appear in the constitution, but gambling is not. So went the argument.
There simply was not enough time for me to ask the question about leverage, which has been posed before. With the actual budget to come in 2 months, Republicans will be hard pressed to exert any negotiating force since the caucus could not unify for some major votes in the special session.
An even better dialogue surrounded the next topic, the Citizens For Better Government PAC. Delegates King, Schuh, and Kipke have joined the PAC's efforts to raise money for promising Republican candidates and contested Republican incumbents. While the intentions of the delegates may be noble, the officers of the PAC are not.
The chairman of the PAC is Lawrence Scott, and the treasurer is Doug Burkhardt. Mention these names to local Republican activists, and you will elicit the ire of a sleeping giant being awoken. Burkhardt worked against certain Republican candidates as a member of a central committee; Scott from most accounts is morally bankrupt; and both have worked against other PAC's in the past.
The Citizens For Better Government PAC is not even registered as a Republican entity, which makes the delegates' involvement all the more questionable, and risky for them. Delegate King remained steadfast, however, stating that such was merely an oversight and "this is obviously a Republican PAC". When asked who will make the decisions of where the money goes, they responded "we will". So they think. With Scott as chairman and Burkhardt as treasurer, the PAC can disperse money freely without the consent of the delegates; the delegates indeed cannot be named officers of the PAC because it would constitute a 'slate' and the money could only go to the slate's candidates. Although they certainly cannot be naive to this process or to Lawrence Scott (he is an advisor to Schuh), Schuh and King seemed surprised at the group's insistence that their fundraising abilities are being used to establish a slush fund for a campaign consultant.
The PAC has big goals--they claim to have $15,000-$20,000 in the bank and to have commitments for another $125,000. Delegate Schuh hopes to raise $400,000 to spend on the next election. The concern of Republicans should be the people in charge of the money. After all, why not use the Maryland GOP?
Crossposted at Annapolis Politics
4 comments:
The $15-$20K is their own money to pay for the speaker. The commitment amount may or may not be true but one has to wonder how the blow back is affecting the fundraising efforts. The numbers you reported I have been hearing for some time except I was told the 125 was in the bank not "pledged."
Both Schuh and King are Scott lackeys and the whole deal is a slush fund for him. The whole idea is morally bankrupt and understanding the finance limits of a PAC, how could they even spend $400K on candidates in the county? Especially when I was told by Kipke that little would be spent in 31 and none in 33. There just are not enough candidates unless they spend a great deal internally (ie Scott's pocket for consulting fees) or support multiple candidates in the same primary (another Scott trademark).
Given the documented tactics of the chair of this group, what in the world gives us any reason to trust anything they say?
It seems the arrogance of incumbents was on full display.
Keep up the good work.
There has been a lot of misinfomration. When Burkhardt pitched the Annapolis central committee, he made it sound like Ron George and Gov. Ehrlich were on board as well. I talked to Ron George the next day, and he corrected the record--saying that he would be interested in the idea if they would give him some money. Hardly the same as being a pitch man for the PAC.
I don't know anything about Burkhardt and Scott, but I did have a chance to speak with Del. King about a month or so ago at the Rockfish in Eastport. He mentioned the PAC idea after recounting his Primary campaign and first term in the GA. He was struck by how difficult it was for someone like him who was new to politics and campaigning and how he continues to be an outsider in GOP delegation.
I had to agree with him that the county and state GOP doesn't exactly reach out to activists and potential candidates. It was my perception that candidacies and campaigns were made in the yacht clubs and country clubs in the county. But I am only poor working stiff, what do I know.
Even a wealthy guy like King, it seems, had experienced it first hand. I had to admire his passion when he talked about the PAC. It was his solution to filling the void he experienced so that future candidates could be recruited and supported.
I hope Del. King will reevaluate his associates in the PAC based on the collective wisdom expressed here. Even the whole PAC idea itself. At the same time I hope Messrs. Kline and McConkey will try to bring him into the conservative fold. I think we have a lot more in common than we have been willing to admit.
I will say that the candidates seemed genuine in trying to improve the process to attract and elect candidates. But you are correct in the main point, that doing so with this PAC is not a good idea.
Post a Comment