Tuesday, March 9 – Other people’s work

Sometimes, other people can do the work for you.

You may remember that the doctors objected to my bill allowing homeless minors to provide consent for their medical treatment.

I asked the bill’s advocate to meet with the pediatricians’ lobbyist. I have heard that their talks were productive.

Today, I was told a letter is on its way from the physicians, withdrawing their objections.

Now I’ll follow up with key members and staff of the committee that will vote on the bill.

Sometimes, a lawyer can hedge as well as a politician.

The attorney from the State Bar Association raised specific objections to my bill requiring board of directors or shareholder approval before a Maryland corporation can make an independent campaign expenditure.

It was far more effective than if he had made the tired old claim that corporations would flee the state for Delaware if this burden was imposed upon them.

Then a committee member asked if he could support the bill if certain provisions were removed.

“It would probably be ok, making it more difficult to testify against it,” he artfully responded.

Wednesday, January 27 – Undue influence

I don’t think Justice Stevens will mind.

I’ve been working on legislation to restrict corporations’ expenditures in political campaigns since last Friday, the day after the Supreme Court ruling opening the floodgates for businesses to dominate the political process.

Maryland’s limits on the amount of money a company or individual can give directly to candidates are not affected by the decision. However, there are no longer any restrictions on independent expenditures by individual or corporations.

This means a company can spend any amount on an ad campaign targeting a candidate. My bill would require businesses to get their shareholders’ approval before doing so, just as they must do so now before merging with another company.

Companies doing business with the state government could not wage such campaigns, and no corporation could claim these costs as a business expense for state tax purposes, under other bills being drafted.

Before today’s press conference, I decided I should read the case – or at least Justice Stevens’ dissent. He wrote about the damage that would result to public faith in the integrity of the democratic process from the undue influence of corporations brought on by the majority’s decision.

Standing before the microphones, I didn’t say that I was quoting Justice Stevens, but I will in my written testimony.