So if the headline had been written by an unbiased journalist, maybe it would have focused on a disgruntled employee filing improper legal documents?

Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't see that there is much of a basis for this complaint. Many groups (i.e. unions, businesses, etc.) do independent expenditures. You can say "vote for", "vote against" or whatever you want as long as you don't coordinate with the candidate, there this says nothing about coordination.

I think it is pretty ironic that people who are yelling the loudest for new rules about campaign finance are upset that someone wants to make sure they followed the law.

After what happened in late March, when it was reported that Progressive Maryland - which Mr. Hucker was still employed by at the time - did not send out endorsement surveys to every candidate in the 20th district race, it does raise a few eyebrows about how Progressive Maryland might have used its money and other resources to help Mr. Hucker.

Are Mr. Hucker and Progressive Maryland guilty? I don't know. The only way to find out is to let the investigation run its course.

I working on the endorsement process with Progressive Maryland back in March and want to correct the record (again) and state that all known candidates received an e-mail invitation to fill out the Progressive Maryland questionnaire in District 20. Tim Craig got that part of his story wrong. Progressive Maryland still has copies of the original e-mail that went out to the correct e-mail addresses of the candidates.

All were also later contacted by "snail mail" or by telephone and the deadline for questionnaires was extended in order to accomodate any candidate who for whatever reason didn't see the original invitation. This was also true for other candidates in other election districts across the state and an open invitation to fill out the questionnaire was also posted on the Progressive Maryland website (still up as of today--although it should probably be removed now that the election is over).

This complaint is the tip of the iceberg; the Hucker/Progressive Maryland scheme runs much deeper. I'll pass along but one example.

When local candidates sought PM's support in early 2006, Hucker asked them, point blank, "Are you going to support my campaign when I announce?" Tom did this while in Progressive Maryland's offices and while on the organization's payroll.

Several of these candidates lost in the September primary. We can only hope that one or more of them will now have the courage to tell their stories publicly. Otherwise, we risk giving free reign to the type of character that so thoroughly corrupted congressional Republicans. Montgomery County deserves better.

Little Birdie,

You seem to know a great deal about the supposed Hucker/Progressive Maryland scheme. You suggest that unsuccessful candidates should publicly share their experiences with Hucker, noting the possible fallout of corruption if they don't. Yet, you hide behind a silly nickname. I just don't understand how you rationalize this.

You are right about one thing though. The residents of Montgomery County, and the state, deserve better than this- better than being left to read politically motivated comments left by an author not even willing to sign a name to words. Oh the irony!

Hi Nicole, I'm sorry that my anonymity bothers you more than the issue at hand. I would reveal myself, in all my unimportant glory, if it would not compromise many good folks who have their own reasons for keeping silent. Much as I may disagree with them, I have to respect those wishes.

Let's get back on subject. Am I wrong to be so bothered by this behavior? Is it merely a personality issue and not an ethical/legal one? I'd like to know what other readers think, especially any lawyers in the crowd. This conversation has been limited to us curmudgeonly activists until now, so I'd like to know whether our neighbors find this objectionable. If not, then I'll worry on by my lonesome.

"...most respected good-government groups..."

By whom? I think your slip is showing...

Facts:

1. Bobbye Walton, formerly, of Common Cause Maryland, sent out a press release the day AFTER her stint with the organization had ended.

2.Walton's complaint was that Progressive Maryland distributed materials, not paid for by their PAC, that used the words "support" and/or "vote for"

3.Maryland State Board of Elections allows all people, including non-profits, to spend up to $10,000 to help elected candidates. Had Bobbye Walton cared so much as to call the State Board of Elections to ask this very question, she would have been told the same information that I had. A call that took me only a few minutes to make, I might add. Who's wasting our time now?

4.Bobbye Walton has a new job working for County Council Member-Elect Duchy Trachtenberg- according to their website, a candidate endorsed by Progressive Maryland. My guess here is that she didn't line this new position up over night. I wonder if this was her real reason for leaving Common Cause.

I believe Ms. Walton's actions were politically motivated. And I think the bigger question here, the one worth discussing, is how to prevent such witch hunts from having a negative impact on our community and frankly, wasting our time & mudding up our newspapers.

Anyone can make bogus accusations, ones lacking any true research or fact gathering. It's when people do it without merit,that the real problem occur.

And little birdie, when we have others adding to the pot, unwilling to stand behind their words, it just helps all the pieces to come together a bit more quickly. And that's why your anonymity is an issue for me. It is a huge part of the problem at hand.

This is a politically charged witch hunt, and nothing more. Can we move along to some real news now?

Mr. Simpson and Ms. Waybright,

I want to begin by saying that my only knowledge of this issue is what I have heard second and third hand, so I will not make any judgements about the actions of Delegate-elect Hucker or Progressive Maryland.

However, judging by something Mr. Simpson stated in his post above a question arises that feel I raises some specter of impropriety that I would honestly like addressed:

Mr. Simpson stated that "all known candidates received an e-mail invitation to fill out the Progressive Maryland questionnaire in District 20."

My hang-up is with the word "known". Don't most groups who choose to endorse candidates wait till the filing deadline to begin the process to be sure that they account for all candidates? If not, how did Progressive Maryland determine who was known or unknown, who was viable or not? This alone suggests that there was some subjectivity in selecting who received the questionnaire.

Finally, to the best of your knowledge, was Mr. Hucker a filed candidate at the time the emails went out or simply a presumptive candidate based on his comments or actions?

Thanks, just curious.

Mdhawk for a person just hearing things off second and third hand, you are very selective about how progressive mayland picked there endorsed candidates.

Mdhawk,

Being only a member, I don't feel comfortable speaking to the specifics of Progressive Maryland's endorsement process.

However, I am interested in how we moved from the Bobbye Walton discussion onto another one, one that seems dated.

To answer the questions presented to me:

Mr/Ms White - I am active in Democratic politics in Montgomery County, but not in District 20. As a result, I am not familiar with what Progressive Maryland's process for endorsement was in that District. Therefore, I asked the question. I am not interested in playing "gotcha" politics here, and I generally support Progressive Maryland's agenda and policies. But since it was brought up, I asked the question.

Ms. Waybright, I asked the question because Mr. Simpson brought it up in his post above, and I felt the way that he used it required some follow up. If it is such a dated topic, then Mr. Simpson shouldn't have made a point of it in his rebuttable to the article and the other posts.

Nevertheless, I notice that my question was not answered, but that my motivations were questioned for asking it.

Par for the course with the PM crowd.

MDHAWK,
I think when Craig Simpson said that there was "an open invitation" to fill out the questionaire on their website, that pretty much says that they didn't have any criteria for which candidates could fill out a questionaire. Even the Maryland Board of Elections website didn't have all the candidates that were filed with them on their website until days before the primary, so its nearly impossible to have a complete list of every candidate.

I have to agree with Ms. Waybright's assessment of the witch hunt on Progressive Maryland and Tom Hucker. It seems to me that Delegate-elect Hucker's campaign for the State House stirred up a lot of anger on the part of some constituents and other candidates as well for reasons that seem unwarranted and mainly based in petty jealousies. From what I gather, each candidate benefitted from the backing of their respective "organizations," i.e. Delegate-elect Mizeur had considerable, national support from Senator Kerry and Aaron Klein had much support from Senator Sarbanes, to name two. Did Hucker begrudge either of them their support? Hucker happened to be the beneficiary of Progressive Maryland's independent expenditure that he justly earned by years of hard work and steadfast determination on behalf of working families in Mongomery County. If others can't deal with that, too bad. Neither Hucker, nor Progressive Maryland did anything illegal. If people have problems with the process, they should take it up with the Board of Elections and not cast aspersions on a man who has made a significant and positive impact on the lives of people in this county and district.
As for the debate going on regarding Ms. Walton, well I suspect that her actions are far more suspicious than those of Progressive Maryland. I don't beleive that Ms. Walton would have resigned from her position with Common Cause had she not had another, more profitable position in place for herself. Her actions and motivations are not "noble," they are questionable. I am further disturbed by the fact that she would go so far as to issue a press release without having first checked her facts with the Board of Elections; especially since she represents an organization that collaborates with Progressive Maryland on issues that benefit this county. How loyal of her! Seems like a cheap ploy to create negative press with no substance to back it up. Had she been professional, none of us would be wasting our time discussing this meritless allegation. Ms. Walton truly made herself look bad.
It should be noted that Delegate-elect Hucker was supported by nearly 23,000 voters in the District! While he came in third to Mizeur's second, it was a very close third (approx. 500 vote difference). Opponents to Hucker should move on with their lives and stop the tiresome rants and baseless allegations.
By the way, I've had the good fortune to meet Delegate-elect Hucker and he has offered me an open door policy to discuss any concerns I might have. I took him up on his offer and was easily able to reach him through Progressive Maryland at (301) 495-7004. He was more than happy to answer my questions and give me the time to thoughtfully respond to my concerns. I suggest that others who have gripes make better use of their time by doing the same.

Sorry for not responding to mdhawk earlier. No sinster intentions. I left Progressive Maryland after the November General Election and frankly did not return to this blog until receiving a phone call last night from a friend.

The PM endorsement process for the Primary began in February and concluded in July. If PM had waited until the July filing date to send out questionnaires to late filing candidates, the earliest the process could have been concluded would have been late August. This would have been fine if PM were an organization that only issued "paper endorsements."

Given Maryland's late filing deadline, more and more organizations that actually do electoral work to influence elections (phone, field, mail, internet/e-mail, etc.) are conducting endorsements prior to the filing deadline. This is a trade-off. You are correct that candidates that decide late can be missed. This is mitigated somewhat by the potential candidates' knowledge that endorsement process for various organizations is moving forward. I was contacted by several (at that time potential) candidates that asked specific questions about the latest they could submit questionnaires to be considered.

How were early endorsement districts selected? As part of an overall election plan, the PM board adopted a strategy of attempting to move the General Assembly to the "left" by electing progressives to open seats in "safe" districts during the Primary. During the General Election, the plan was to move to elect more progressive candidates in the "swing" districts.

PM also had a responsibility as a statewide group to be active throughout the state. In order to prepare to begin work in June, open Delegate seats were identified in January in Montgomery District 20 (Peter Franchot running for Comptroller), Baltimore County District 11 (Bobby Zirkin running for State Senate, Prince George's District 25 (Anthony Brown running for Lt. Gov)and Baltimore City District 45 (Tiger Davis retiring). These (along with Governor, Comptroller, Attorney General, the eight Congressional races and the U.S. Senate race were sent questionnaires and interviews conducted to consider early endorsements. Ultimately, no early endorsement was done for Attorney General.

Other endorsements followed over the course of three different board meetings following receipt of questionnaires and recommendations by the PM board political committee.

In the case of District 20, I could be wrong (you could check the state BOE website to see filing dates), but I believe the only candidate who had actually filed at the time may have been Joy Austin-Lane who later withdrew and possibly Heather Mizeur. Nonetheless all the candidates mentioned in the original Washington Post article received several invites to fill out the PM questionnaire.

I agree that this is a very dated issue to discuss, but the subject seems to keep coming up in blogs. There is certainly room for different opinions on how to best conduct an endorsement process. My entries here are to try to present facts upon which you can reach informed opinions. There is no way I can put every detail (nor would you want me to) on this blog. If you have specific questions, please feel free to e-mail me at csimpson1101@aol.com (put something in the header that will make me realize its not spam).

Hey Tom, welcome to the Post blog! You sound the same in type as you do in person. Looks like we've got an interesting 4+ years ahead with this stuff, huh? Politics sure ain't beanbag.

Craig,

Thanks for the answer. Though I disagree with some of the methods that PM used, I understand the give-and-take with the timing issue and appreciate your candor.

I also hope that some of the other commentors on this blog use this as an opportunity to learn about the difference between an honest question and trolls looking to fight.

As I mentioned, I wish Delegate-elect Hucker well and honestly believe that he will do his best to serve his constituents, and I hope that PM will continue to fight for the causes it believes.

So what I am saying, RCD, is that there is no reason to yell at someone for asking a question. And to answer your comment, the Board of Elections is required, by law, to maintain a timely list of all candidates that have filed. So the list you saw was not accurate by your perception either because (1) the people you thought were running may not have actually filed their paperwork, or (2) the BoE hadn't updated their website. Nevertheless, anyone could have called the BoE and received an updated list.

This is ridiculous. I've just started tuning into this debate, and I'm laughing at the way the progressive md supporters/staffers are contorting themselves to make everything seem kosher. Well, you're right, maybe Progressive MD did NOT violate the law -- but hey, we're progressives, so this is also about maintaining progressive values -- something I think Prog. MD failed MISERABLY on this cycle. Note for example that congressional GOP was just cleared of any wrong-doing in their handling of the Mark Foley matter. Well again, maybe they didn't break the law but they certainly weren't maintaining open , good government, progressive practices.

Moreover, the fact of this discussion even occurring in this depth I think notes that there should at least be an investigation:

1. accounting for exactly how much prog. md. spent to help Hucker (both in $$$ and in staff time used) -- for example, I work in Takoma Park, and I received a robocall paid for by Prog. MD, taped by a woman named Lily who works there, but announcing Hucker's candidacy for office. What's up with that?

2. Progressive MD's alleged shakedown of candidates to support Tom Hucker. I don't know anything about this, but I will say it seems bizarre that PM supported some very un-progressive candidates this cycle. And let's be honest, the whole district 20 endorsement process was ridiculous -- you can send whatever emails you want, but the biggest problem is not that not all the candidates in D.20 received the survey at the same time -- but that not every legislative district received a survey! Seems to me that doing a survey only in D.20 is a scam to either troll information from the candidates to aid Tom (were the survey responses turned over to Tom? When did he turn his in?) or a selective use of resources to aid his campaign. In the same way it seems all of the endorsements were made in a way to bolster Tom's candidacy with supposedly powerful incumbents, progressive or not.

Whatever. I don't really care about this investigation -- the more important thing that people should do is to cancel their Prog. MD memberships and not donate. There needs to be a new MD grassroots group organized that actually lives by its principles.

Dear "Watching This Debate"

You're entitled to your opinion, but you've stated several factual inaccuracies:

WTD said, "... but the biggest problem is not that not all the candidates in D.20 received the survey at the same time -- but that not every legislative district received a survey!"

This is simply not true and is easily verifiable by going to the Progressive Maryland website where questionnaire responses are posted for each legislative district throughout Maryland.

WTD said, "Seems to me that doing a survey only in D.20 is a scam to either troll information from the candidates to aid Tom (were the survey responses turned over to Tom? When did he turn his in?)"

Once again, all questionnaires were posted online for anyone to view and are still posted at http://progressivemaryland.org/page.php?id=1406 . No, they were not turned over to Tom, but posted online. If you wish to see the exact time that a candidate turned their questionnaire in, it is recorded on their posted questionnaire.

Now for opinion: To save you the time of checking, Tom Hucker answered "yes" to all questions--something I don't think he needed to look at anyone else's questionnaire in order to do.

I have just read the article and the posts and wanted to add my two cents.

1. I don't know what the process Progressive Maryland followed in vetting the candidates and making their endorsements but as a long time progressive activist and someone who has supported Progressive Maryland and its campaigns over the years, I was very upset with the actual endorsements made in District 20. These endorsements by an organization whose former director was running for office certainly gave the appearance of political opportunism (you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours) which I believe should have no place in progressive politics. In an election which offered a real opportunity to promote progressive politics it seems PM missed the boat!

2. I'm not sure if there is any case for saying that PM violated the law with its political activity in support of Tom Hucker during the primary campaign. But I would like to raise the question: Shouldn't we as progressives hold ourselves to a higher standard than this?

3. I am particularly upset with the petty attack on motives rather than an attempt to address the issues, which characterized much of the debate (on both sides). In an effort to be transparent with regard to my motives, I have included my real name and also want people to know that I am the chairperson of Progressive Neighbors, a group that was formed during the primary election because many progressive activists (mostly in District 20) felt that PM was not representing a "progressive" position in the election. (Please note that the views represented here are mine and not necessarily those of other members of Progressive Neighbors.)

4. I strongly urge PM to take a critical look at its actions during the primary election to see if there are things they should have done differently to promote progressive politics in Maryland. Until they do, I, for one, can not directly support the organization. I will, however, remain open to working with them on any specific issues which promote progressive politics.