Campaign Finance Complaint Provides Fodder for Election Law Reform

A campaign finance violation complaint against former mayoral candidate Piotr Gajewski raised questions about Rockville’s laws on contribution limits, about its campaign fund reporting process and about how much authority the city’s elections board has to enforce city election law.

“It does raise the issue of what we want to do with the election laws of Chapter 8 [of the city code],” board Chairman David Celeste said. “Election laws, to this point, have been more of guidelines of compliance—we haven’t been much of an enforcement body.”

Speaking during Thursday’s board meeting, Celeste said that making election laws more punitive could give the board tools to ensure compliance. But it also could have unintended consequences.

“Will that have a chilling effect on the number of folks who want to run for office?” he said.

The board . While falling short of accounting for what Gajewski said were in-kind contributions to his campaign, the amended report put the former candidate in compliance with city election law.

Board member Beryl Feinberg voted to accept the amended report while acknowledging that the board did not have the tools to resolve the issue effectively.

While the board accepted Gajewski’s amended report, it “did not approve it,” Feinberg said. “It’s a nuance, but it’s an important nuance.”

Board member Sidney Gottlieb expressed the board’s frustration: “We did what we could,” he said. “I don’t know how much more we can do.”

Celeste said that the episode “leaves a rough taste in my mouth.”

Gajewski, informed of the board’s decision by a reporter on Tuesday, said it was “a reasonable outcome.”

“The purpose of election laws is to ensure elections are fair and results are fair,” he said. “I think the laws are accomplishing that. And all this drama, I don’t think it serves us well.”

Gajewski defended his decision to accept contributions from developers. Financing of his campaign became an . He also questioned the value of campaign finance disclosures of such contributions.

Voters are welcome to review candidates’ records on supporting or opposing development projects, Gajewski said.

He used the proposed Silverwood development as an example: “Whether Mr. Silverwood gives me $500 or doesn’t, doesn’t really add substantively to what the electorate is using or can use to base their votes on,” he said.

Drew Powell, who led the group —and pointed out in a separate complaint that Gajewski had apparently failed to report contributions from developers until after the election—said he agreed with the board that it is time to move on.

“If the outcome of the board’s investigation results in strengthened and more transparent election law, Rockville voters will be the winners,” Powell said in an interview on Tuesday.

The board should not consider itself an enforcement body, Powell said. That function should be left up to the mayor and City Council or another body, he said.

“[The board’s] job is one of making sure the election runs smoothly and candidates are in compliance,” Powell said. “Their job is not to enforce with punishment or fines.”

Talk of campaign finance reporting and election law dominated a Jan. 28 post-election wrap-up meeting with candidates, campaign workers and elections board members.

The board on Thursday discussed holding a follow-up to that meeting in late March or early April. It is expected that the four-month-long investigation of the violations by the Gajewski campaign will serve as a case study for discussing reforms to the city’s election laws.

Powell said he is hopeful that city election law will be strengthened with potential penalties or sanctions for violations.

The next city election is in 2013. The board should draft proposed changes to election laws before the next campaign season begins, Powell said.

“The Board of Supervisors of Elections needs to move very swiftly to put proposed changes before the mayor and council by the October—no later than November—timeframe,” he said.

A deadline could put pressure on the board to abandon the deliberative approach it has taken in considering the campaign finance allegations against Gajewski. But the board could have faced a lot more pressure if not for .

“We would’ve had a lot more problems had Piotr won the election,” Gottlieb said.