What Could be Positive About Negative?

Post #77

Several weeks ago, my opponent and I started sending campaign mailings to voters.  The tradition in a campaign is to define yourself and your record first, then show distinctions between you and the other candidate(s), and then, in the closing days, urge your supporters to vote.

I have been knocking on doors for over 14 months.  In that time, I have rarely been asked about my 32-year incumbent opponent.  When her name was broached, however, it was generally to ask about our differences.  The job for a challenger is to answer the question: why should we fire the incumbent and hire you?  Despite this, it has been my practice throughout this campaign not to criticize Jennie Forehand personally or in any way to demean her lifetime commitment to public service.  It is, acceptable, however, to draw distinctions in votes cast… or not cast.

It is a fact that she was the only State Senator who missed the key vote on the death penalty.  It is a fact that Jennie’s vote enacted the tax on computer services. It is a fact that she opposed common sense lead paint tests and took contributions from real estate interests.  Nowhere do we say or imply that she missed all the votes on the death penalty, wanted to put computer companies out of business, or is indifferent to children’s health.  Facts are facts though, and she needs to defend her record on these three recent issues.

This is the kind of “negative” campaigning that can have positive effects: it informs the voters on important issues that an incumbent candidate would just as soon keep quiet, and that the media-- especially on the local level-- often lacks the resources to pursue.  Since it draws legitimate contrasts between the candidates, it is more accurately referred to as comparative advertising. 

On the other hand, Jennie and her powerful Annapolis supporters have dug up old news and smeared it onto some pretty ugly mailers.  She knew that I had a personal relationship in the mid-90’s with a guy who happened to be a lobbyist.  She knew that we were the only couple (of three) that chose to disclose all of our personal expenditures, including movie tickets and meals.  It was only due to that relationship that I earned the dubious distinction of being the top “gift” (meals are considered ‘gifts‘under Maryland law) recipient in the legislature.  The media and others who knew the circumstances all gave us kudos for our ultra-ethical behavior.  Unfortunately, Jennie chose to use it against me for her political gain.

The same can be said for the tobacco tax.  I voted FOR an 83% tobacco tax increase.  I was a co-sponsor of a proposed 139% increase.  But when it came to the 278% increase referred to in Jennie’s negative mailer-- a jump in taxes that would have put us completely out-of-step with neighboring jurisdictions like DC and VA-- I voted no.  There was no lobbyist influence, no tobacco campaign contributions (ever!), no special interest persuasion involved.  It was me, trying to cast the most careful and well-informed votes I could.  In my eight years in office, it was probably the toughest decision I made.

I don’t like negative campaigning.  Anything that is a personal smear, unsupported by the facts or filled with innuendo should have no place in our political world.  The reality is that it exists; any candidate not prepared to get beaten up a bit should stay out of politics.  But, like a lot of people, I think it diminishes the process.

There are links and more on a new page we felt compelled to create.  Please visit www.CherylKagan.org/facts to learn about our mailers and those sent by our opponent.

I would love to hear from you, dear Blog reader!  What’s your opinion on negative campaigning?  Do you see the difference between issue-based differences and personal or character attacks?  Please send an email to Blog@CherylKagan.org or click on the "Comments" link below to express your views.  Please be sure to indicate which post (#77) you're addressing.

Thanks for reading.  I will post again soon.

 In The Dark About PEPCO?!

Post #76

For too many of us, this has been the summer of the power outage in Montgomery County -- full of blackouts, melting food, and sultry, un-air-conditioned nights. (This was after the outages we all experienced during the snow storms last winter!)  In response to the resulting public outrage, the Maryland Public Service Commission tonight held a public hearing on PEPCO’s sorry standard of service.  I walked over to the County Council Building from our headquarters in downtown Rockville to participate, because I thought it important to hear from leaders and members of the community I hope to represent again.  In addition, I had written testimony I was prepared to deliver on my own experiences with our electric utility.

Although it is obviously difficult just two weeks before an election to disconnect any public appearance from my candidacy, it was as a PEPCO ratepayer and former member of the House of Delegates that I went to the hearing.  As a ratepayer, I wanted to share the story of how my neighbors and I successfully demanded better service from PEPCO, for the example it would provide to those in attendance.  As a former Delegate, I wanted to recount the efforts of some of us in the legislature to maintain adequate public control of electric utilities at a time when the idea of power-company deregulation was sweeping the nation.  The dire effect of deregulation on rates and service since then-- here and elsewhere-- has proven that those entities charged with providing a vital public service must not be regulated by the marketplace alone.

The Council chambers were packed, and there was a long list of people who wanted to testify.  Virtually every elected official in Montgomery County, from U.S. Rep. Chris Van Hollen and County Executive Ike Leggett to various town officials, thought it worth their time to come and participate.  They shared their own ideas and experiences as well as those of their constituents. My opponent, Jennie Forehand, was a notable exception-- apparently she had something better to do tonight.

Power outages are not only a nuisance, but waste refrigerated and frozen food, and are a drag on the economy because of all the electronic devices (and businesses!) that stop working. They can also be life-threatening to those reliant on certain medical devices.

I live in a neighborhood that suffered frequent power outages, often for no discernible reason.  I finally got fed up.  I drafted a petition to PEPCO and went door-to-door, talking to my neighbors and collecting signatures. We insisted that the company replace the outdated equipment that contributed to the problem.  Because we were united in our effort and persistent in our demands, PEPCO listened.  The company made the necessary upgrades.  Now, I am happy to say our neighborhood suffers fewer outages than average for our service area.  Our success can be replicated elsewhere if neighbors work together.

At the government level, progress can also be made by holding PEPCO accountable.  Tonight’s hearing was a good example of that kind of public oversight.  In fact, the whole idea behind the Public Service Commissions established early last century was to ensure that power and other monopolies were providing good service at reasonable rates.  That simple idea was somehow lost in the deregulation fervor of the ‘90s, at great cost to the ratepayers and the economy.  Too few of us in the Maryland legislature envisioned a decline in service and an increase in rates if electric utilities were deregulated; we opposed that initiative but take no satisfaction in having been right.  If anything good comes out of this summer of power outages, perhaps it will be a return to a more balanced approach to regulating our public utilities.

I would love to hear from you, dear Blog reader!  What advice or request would YOU have wanted your State Senator to deliver to PEPCO this evening?  Please send an email to Blog@CherylKagan.org or click on the "Comments" link below to express your views.  Please be sure to indicate which post (#76) you're addressing.

Thanks for reading.  I will post again soon.

The Important Post

Post #75

Earlier this week, I was honored to receive the endorsement of The Washington Post.  They wrote:

DISTRICT 17: Sen. Jennie M. Forehand is a beloved figure, or rather fixture, in Annapolis, having served 16 years in the state Senate and, before that, 16 years in the House of Delegates. Alas, she is not really an influential one, despite good work on human trafficking, transportation and other issues. The county would be better served by Cheryl C. Kagan, a hard-charging former state delegate and nonprofit executive.

Why is this endorsement so important and so prestigious?  I would suggest that there are four reasons:

1)  Unlike businesses, unions, or other advocacy organizations, regional newspapers take a broader view and have an interest in a wide range of issues.  Focused on issues that range from economic development to transportation and education, newspapers are invested in the success of our community.

2)  Because they observe the workings of government closely, editors have insights as to the effectiveness of our political representatives.  They see them in action (or inaction!) and know how they are perceived by their colleagues.

3)  Newspapers take the long view.  A newspaper like The Washington Post is over 100 years old, has seen many elected officials and issues come and go, and tries to assess the deeper impact of officeholders and policies on our community.

4)  A paper with the prestige of the Post knows that readers take its opinions seriously.  It therefore takes a very deliberative approach to endorsements and never makes a choice lightly. 

Each of these reasons makes receiving the endorsement of The Washington Post all the more gratifying.

I would love to hear from you, dear Blog reader!  Do you pay attention to endorsements from regional newspapers like the Post?  Why?  Please send an email to Blog@CherylKagan.org or click on the "Comments" link below to express your views.  Please be sure to indicate which post (#75) you're addressing.

Thanks for reading.  I will post again soon.

Can You Hear Me Now??

Post #74

Earlier this year, Congress approved a historic overhaul of our health care plans.  Virtually no one was happy with the outcome.  Some liberals were unhappy with the fact that the public option was never seriously considered.  Conservatives were dissatisfied with the number of provisions they advocated that were included in the final version.   Very few constituents were satisfied either – although not necessary because their opinions didn’t prevail, but because they felt their voices weren’t heard.

Something similar happened locally.  After much deliberation, the County Council and Planning Board approved the Gaithersburg West Master Plan, also known as “Great Seneca Science Corridor.”  While Johns Hopkins has advocated the expansion of its campus on the Belward Farm, many neighbors (in addition to the cities of Gaithersburg and Rockville) have expressed serious concerns about the proposal.  People observe – either from the sidewalk or inside their cars – the current levels of congestion, and wonder how the area can absorb more.  This issue is a common one I’ve heard during the 13+ months I’ve been door-knocking throughout the district.  And the common complaint I’ve heard is that no one seems to be listening.

In this economic downturn, many are desperate for jobs.  If they are good-paying, as many are – and promise to be – in the I-270 tech corridor, all the better.  The technology sector – developing new ways to treat disease, live a more green lifestyle, better communicate with our world – is vital for both societal and economic benefit.  Such jobs are important for sustaining our families, providing tax revenue for education, transportation, and other priority government programs.  The Hopkins expansion would also enhance the prestige of Montgomery County as a technology and educational showpiece in the national and international arena.

However, governments at all levels must better at listening to residents.  It is a common reality – too often ignored – that people are at peace with a decision they disagree with if they feel at least their views were truly heard and considered.  If elected to serve as your Senator, I pledge to listen to divergent viewpoints.  I’ve been building consensus on tough issues since before I served eight years as a State Legislator.  It is how I live my life – not just my political career.

I would love to hear from you, dear Blog reader!  What ways have you found especially effective or frustrating when it comes to getting your point across to elected officials?  Please send an email to Blog@CherylKagan.org or click on the "Comments" link below to express your views.  Please be sure to indicate which post (#74) you're addressing.

Thanks for reading.  I will post again soon.

Pick a Team, Any Team

Post #73

As I’ve talked to my neighbors in District 17 over the past 13 months who are actively involved in various issues, I am reminded of the small fraction that will actually help pick their State Senator this fall.  Many voters consider themselves to be independent thinkers and prefer not to be categorized; they choose not to register with either major political party.  They tell me that they “vote the person, not the party.”  I completely agree with that sentiment.  Nonetheless, those choosing to remain unaffiliated should be aware of two facts.

First, they are willfully disenfranchising themselves in 50% of the state (and federal) elections for which they are qualified to vote.  By waiting to vote until November, they may be unhappy with their choices.  This causes further cynicism and frustration with the political process.

Second, the reality is that in Montgomery County, most electoral decisions are actually made in the Democratic primary elections.  By the time of the general elections, there are very few (if any) contested local races left to be decided.

The September 14^th primary for D/17 State Senate, contested for the first time in 20 years, underscores the reality of those two facts.  Those hoping for a more effective advocate in Annapolis will fail to make their voices heard if not registered as a Democrat.

The reality is that a small fraction of the nearly 120,000 people I hope to represent again will actually cast a ballot this fall.  Many smart people with well-reasoned opinions and a great deal of commitment to their community are unlikely to turn out. 

Earlier this year, Governor O'Malley signed a bill that extended the deadline for Marylanders who would like to align themselves with either the Democratic (I hope!) or Republican parties to Tuesday, August 24^th.   It is only if you have identified your preference as one of those two choices* that you will be able to help nominate our next Governor, Attorney General, Comptroller, County Executive & Council, and state legislators.  Pick a team, either team ... but be an active citizen-- and come out to vote in September!

* There are voters who choose to register as “Green” or other non-major political party.  At this point in our democracy, those smaller parties either don't field candidates at all... or they don't have contested races from which you would be choosing.  In November, voters from any party (or no party) can support any person on the ballot, regardless of affiliation.

I would love to hear from you, dear Blog reader!  Have you thought about switching from unaffiliated to one of the two established parties as a way of increasing your impact on the political process?  What has stopped you from doing so?  Please send an email to Blog@CherylKagan.org or click on the "Comments" link below to express your views.  Please be sure to indicate which post (#73) you're addressing.

Thanks for reading.  I will post again soon.