This post was contributed by a community member. The views expressed here are the author's own.

Community Corner

Rockville Law Does Not Cap Spouse Contributions

Rockville City Council member provides alternative analysis.

(Council member Bridget Donnell Newton provided this as a letter to the editor.)

Sean –

Thank you for your call Tuesday evening which alerted me to Mr. Moore’s letter. It might be interesting for your readers to see the complete content of the email exchange which took place Wednesday morning between Mr. Moore and myself. I can’t copy the transmittal time for Mr. Moore’s response to my email but it was Wednesday October 5, 2011 9:22am.

Find out what's happening in Rockvillewith free, real-time updates from Patch.

Email exchange between Moore and Newton:

Bridget, Of course. It is attached.

Find out what's happening in Rockvillewith free, real-time updates from Patch.

You are not the focus of the letter. The point of the letter is not what happened last cycle; the point is that there is a serious typographical error in the Rockville Code that makes something illegal that everyone (including me, until I read the code closely) thought was legal.

The letter also raises the question of whether, if we are going to change the Code to remove any limits on spousal contributions to Rockville political campaigns, we should also require candidates' spouses to perform the same complete financial disclosure that we require of candidates and many board members.

If we fail to require this, we are left with an enormous loophole in our city election laws. As you have spoken a lot about transparency, I can't imagine that you would find this to be a particularly controversial proposal.

Tom

On Wed, 5 Oct 2011 09:09:48 -0400 (EDT), Bridget Donnell Newton wrote: Tom - Sean Sedam of the Patch has informed me that you have sent a letter to the Board of Elections suggesting that I violated our election quidelines. Would you be so kind as to send me a copy of said letter.

Thanks- Bridget

Clearly –his email to the Board of Elections with a copy ONLY to the Patch was intended to try and publicly discredit me and cast doubt on my integrity. Further, full “transparency” would have been to alert me and the rest of the candidates – both 2009 and 2011 - to his concerns prior to doing what he hoped would result in on the front page of one of the most read blogs in Rockville.

With that said– I am afraid that Mr. Moore strains to make a point. The ordinance – Section 8-77 of the City Code – clearly states that the contributions of a candidate or his/her spouse to the candidate’s own campaign are not subject to the limitations delineated in the following section 8-78. It is subsection (d) of 8- 78 (captioned “Limit of Contributions”) that imposes dollar limitations on campaign contributions. The cross-reference of 8-77 to subsection (b) of 8-78 (captioned “Exception for volunteering...”) is an obvious statutory mistake – essentially a typographical error. So, under the rules of statutory construction, do we throw the baby out with the bathwater? That is, do we conclude that there is no exception for contributions of a candidate or his/her spouse to the candidate’s own campaign?

Concerned that a “typo” would cause Mr. Moore, a lawyer, to conclude that I violated the law, I did a little investigating myself. The rules of statutory construction provide that if the intent of the provision is clear, we construe the ordinance to give effect to its intent. The intent of Section 8-77 could not be more clear. I submit therefore - that one must conclude that under Rockville’s Code - contributions of a candidate or his/her spouse to the candidate’s own campaign are exempt from the limitations of subsection 8-78(d) – as intended.

This is not to say that we should not amend Section 8-77 to correct the erroneous cross-reference, but I think the manner in which this issue has been handled raises several questions as to the intent of the originator as well as any of his supporters.

I believe that this is politically motivated and unfortunately reflects an attitude of negativity and lack of good judgment expediently deployed to propel one’s self interest rather than the best interests of our city and her citizens. Mr. Moore chose to leap-frog to an unfounded accusation of “violation” – dramatizing it by sending it to the press at the same time he sent it to our Board of Elections – while making the choice not to include me or any other candidate. To then claim in his email of Wednesday morning that “You are not the focus of the letter.” is disingenuous at best.

Mr. Moore goes on to claim with great trepidation that unless limitations on spouses are enacted, spouses could become a pipeline for indirect contributions from developers or others who employ the spouses. Rather than struggle thru the maze of his rationale – there is a simple and obvious answer: In the case he describes, the contribution originates from his spouse’s employer and therefore is an indirect contribution from the employer to the candidate and would be in violation of Sub-section 8.78(d). Like a lot of law, you can’t do in two or more steps what you are not allowed to do in one. This same subsection bans the indirect routing of third party funds to a candidate via a spouse in the very first sentence:

“It is unlawful for any individual, association, unincorporated association, or any other entity either directly or indirectly to contribute (more than the specified limits).”

If the Board of Elections were to recommend additional or alternative language that better accomplishes the spirit and intent of the law – I will wholeheartedly support it. I would also remind Mr. Moore that the Council is expected to pass, in some form, substantial changes to the Ethics Code of the City that is more far reaching, restrictive and makes public far more information about a variety of people (including not only their spouses but their children and siblings) who participate in the decision making of our city.

Finally and most importantly – I look forward to the part of this campaign that allows citizens to hear the real differences the candidates may have with each others’ opinions and positions, and hope that attempts to discredit me or my husband’s integrity and reputation will cease. The voters of Rockville are not that easily fooled and we ALL deserve better.

Sincerely- Bridget

Bridget Donnell Newton

We’ve removed the ability to reply as we work to make improvements. Learn more here

The views expressed in this post are the author's own. Want to post on Patch?