Skip to content
Project 2025
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories
Protestors holding signs that read "protect trans kids."

Trump's Orders Threaten Transgender Americans’ Rights

Trump Declares War on Democratic Cities

Trump Declares War on Democratic Cities

Books in a school library.

The Censors Have Names. Use Them.

The U.S. Pentagon.

Congress Bill Spotlight: Department of War Restoration Act

A Trump 2020 flag outside of a home.

Trump’s 2.0 Actions Have Harmed Rural America Who Voted for Him

Maryland public financing program boosts small-dollar support for candidates, report finds

Maryland public financing program boosts small-dollar support for candidates, report finds

Montgomery County's public financing program made its debut during the 2018 election.

Alex Wong/Getty Images
Sara Swann
By Sara SwannSep 13, 2019
Sara Swann

As a staff writer, Sara covers a variety of democracy reform issues, including voting rights, money in politics, gerrymandering and civic education. Prior to joining The Fulcrum in May 2019, Sara reported on local government on Maryland's Eastern Shore for the USA Today network. She is a native West Virginian and a graduate of Syracuse University.

See More Writings by author

Montgomery County, Md., gave campaign finance reform a test drive during last year's election when candidates could opt in to a matching funds program. A recent report from Maryland PIRG deemed the program's inaugural run a success.

The nonpartisan public interest research group outlined in its report, released Thursday, how Montgomery County's program led to greater participation and small-dollar donations. The matching funds boosted fundraising for qualifying candidates to make their average contribution totals comparable to non-participating competitors.

Average contributions for qualifying candidates totaled $306 — almost $10 more than the average donations given to non-participating candidates.

Of the 57 candidates who ran for county executive or a county council seat last year, 35 participated in the public financing program. But only 24 candidates followed all the rules to qualify for matching funds. The Montgomery County Council appropriated $11 million for this election — roughly $2 million was left over at the end.

Candidates who qualified:

  • Only accepted donations from individuals between $5 and $150.
  • Refused to accept money from large donors, PACs, corporations, other candidates and political parties.
  • Met the minimum thresholds for number of county donors and amount of money raised.

Once they meet these requirements, candidates can receive a certain amount of matching funds for each donation between $5 and $150 during contested primary and general elections.

  • County executive candidates: Up to $750,000
  • County council at-large candidates: Up to $250,000
  • County council candidates: Up to $125,000

Candidates not participating in Montgomery County's public financing program could accept up to $6,000 from each political action committee, union, corporation or individual, under Maryland state law.

Qualifying candidates were able to use the matching program to stay competitive against their opponents, the report says. On average, these candidates received 96 percent more contributions from individuals than the campaigns who did not participate in the program.

The Montgomery County Council passed a bill in September 2014 to adopt this public financing system, but November 2018 was the first election that candidates could participate and qualify to receive matching funds.

Six candidates who participated in the program won their respective elections — one for county executive and five of the nine county council seats.

"We are building a democracy where everyone has equal opportunity to participate in county elections regardless of race, gender, age, or income. With the small donor program, Montgomery County is helping ensure county government is accountable to residents, not wealthy special interests," Maryland PIRG Director Emily Scarr said.

Latest news

The Violence We Refuse to See
Community

The Violence We Refuse to See

Fear of AI Makes for Bad Policy
Media & Technology

Fear of AI Makes for Bad Policy

This Mayoral Debate Was Anything but Decisive
Democracy

This Mayoral Debate Was Anything but Decisive

Read More

U.S. President Barack Obama speaking on the phone in the Oval Office.

U.S. President Barack Obama talks President Barack Obama talks with President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan during a phone call from the Oval Office on November 2, 2009 in Washington, DC.

Getty Images, The White House

‘Obama, You're 15 Years Too Late!’

The mid-decade redistricting fight continues, while the word “hypocrisy” has become increasingly common in the media.

The origin of mid-decade redistricting dates back to the early history of the United States. However, its resurgence and legal acceptance primarily stem from the Texas redistricting effort in 2003, a controversial move by the Republican Party to redraw the state's congressional districts, and the 2006 U.S. Supreme Court decision in League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry. This decision, which confirmed that mid-decade redistricting is not prohibited by federal law, was a significant turning point in the acceptance of this practice.

Keep ReadingShow less
Hand of a person casting a ballot at a polling station during voting.

Gerrymandering silences communities and distorts elections. Proportional representation offers a proven path to fairer maps and real democracy.

Getty Images, bizoo_n

Gerrymandering Today, Gerrymandering Tomorrow, Gerrymandering Forever

In 1963, Alabama Governor George Wallace declared, "Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever." (Watch the video of his speech.) As a politically aware high school senior, I was shocked by the venom and anger in his voice—the open, defiant embrace of systematic disenfranchisement, so different from the quieter racism I knew growing up outside Boston.

Today, watching politicians openly rig elections, I feel that same disbelief—especially seeing Republican leaders embrace that same systematic approach: gerrymandering now, gerrymandering tomorrow, gerrymandering forever.

Keep ReadingShow less
An oversized ballot box surrounded by people.

Young people worldwide form new parties to reshape politics—yet America’s two-party system blocks them.

Getty Images, J Studios

No Country for Young Politicians—and How To Fix That

In democracies around the world, young people have started new political parties whenever the establishment has sidelined their views or excluded them from policymaking. These parties have sometimes reinvigorated political competition, compelled established parties to take previously neglected issues seriously, or encouraged incumbent leaders to find better ways to include and reach out to young voters.

In Europe, a trio in their twenties started Volt in 2017 as a pan-European response to Brexit, and the party has managed to win seats in the European Parliament and in some national legislatures. In Germany, young people concerned about climate change created Klimaliste, a party committed to limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, as per the Paris Agreement. Although the party hasn’t won seats at the federal level, they have managed to win some municipal elections. In Chile, leaders of the 2011 student protests, who then won seats as independent candidates, created political parties like Revolución Democrática and Convergencia Social to institutionalize their movements. In 2022, one of these former student leaders, Gabriel Boric, became the president of Chile at 36 years old.

Keep ReadingShow less
How To Fix Gerrymandering: A Fair-Share Rule for Congressional Redistricting

Demonstrators gather outside of The United States Supreme Court during an oral arguments in Gill v. Whitford to call for an end to partisan gerrymandering on October 3, 2017 in Washington, DC

Getty Images, Olivier Douliery

How To Fix Gerrymandering: A Fair-Share Rule for Congressional Redistricting

The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield, and government to gain ground. ~ Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Col. Edward Carrington, Paris, 27 May 1788

The Problem We Face

The U.S. House of Representatives was designed as the chamber of Congress most directly tethered to the people. Article I of the Constitution mandates that seats be apportioned among the states according to population and that members face election every two years—design features meant to keep representatives responsive to shifting public sentiment. Unlike the Senate, which prioritizes state sovereignty and representation, the House translates raw population counts into political voice: each House district is to contain roughly the same number of residents, ensuring that every citizen’s vote carries comparable weight. In principle, then, the House serves as the nation’s demographic mirror, channeling the diverse preferences of the electorate into lawmaking and acting as a safeguard against unresponsive or oligarchic governance.

Nationally, the mismatch between the overall popular vote and the partisan split in House seats is small, with less than a 1% tilt. But state-level results tell a different story. Take Connecticut: Democrats hold all five seats despite Republicans winning over 40% of the statewide vote. In Oklahoma, the inverse occurs—Republicans control every seat even though Democrats consistently earn around 40% of the vote.

Keep ReadingShow less
© Copyright 2025