Here is some more public input: go with the Bose recommendations. Bose are a dedicated group of the public appointed by the same politicians, but these politicians don't want to do anything to hurt their chances of reelection. One day soon, a wealthy person will self finance a campaign and these guys will be blindsided. I bet they won't wait for more and more public input to find a way to fight that challenge.

My husband and I have given Councilman Ashman good reasons why the "PAC" definition needs to be amended via emails. The current "PAC" definition discourages citizen involvement and participation during the election process and creates unnecessary confusion as well. The "PAC" definition was added to the City's Election Ordinance after the 2007 City Election in which Councilman Ashman was first voted into office. Why would Councilman Ashman make a "Bring it on!" comment about the Public Hearing on March 18th? Is he encouraging citizens to testify at the Public Hearing or discouraging them? Why does he state that the Public Hearing on March 18th will be "hotly contested"? Council members should withhold making position statements on a Public Hearing subject until after citizens have had an opportunity to testify and they listen to what they have to say. This is the process we follow in the City of Gaithersburg and Council members should be sensitive about their public remarks made from the dais. Every citizen in the City of Gaithersburg should be valued and respected by those individuals voted into office to represent us.

This proposal makes no sense to me. Why would the City want less transparency in campaign finance? $1000 is enough to robocall every voter in the City multiple times. Wouldn't we want to know who might be doing something like this? (And yes, I recognize the irony in making this argument anonymously. Isn't it irritating?) At least if, as Mr. Ross suggests, a candidate were to self-finance and do this, he or she would have to report the expense. Why would we want any less from third parties? The current rules don't stop anyone from participating, they are just there to make it possible for voters to know where the participation is coming from. And as far as the Council just rubber-stamping whatever the BOSE comes up with without question, it seems to me that this would be an irresponsible abdication of responsibility. I mean, are we sure this isn't just self-interest on the part of the BOSE? Because the proposed rules would certainly reduce their workload.

Dear Foo Bar. First, it is very ironic that you choose not to reveal your identity, but you must have your personal reasons. Citizens who expend money on candidates would still be required by law to report their donations and how the donation was spent to the appropriate candidate(s). There is no hidden agenda here or lack of transparency as you suggest. However, it will allow citizens the "option" of utilizing their campaign donation of $500 as they want (Meet & Greet Event, print ad, or letter endorsement), versus simply handing over a check to a candidate who will do with the donation as he/she wants. The current PAC definition rule severely limits citizen participation in the election process and makes it extremely confusing on how to report their donation. Raising the amount to $1,000 is still low enough that elected officials will not have the fear of true PAC(s) participating in a City Election. The BOSE is not, as you suggest, trying to be irresponsible when it come to their recommendation and their workload will remain the same - heavy. Finally, I do encourage you to give your full name in future postings, which will give your statements more credibility. Be brave!

Ms. Schimke,

Yes, donations by citizens to individual campaigns would still have to be reported, although by the campaign, not by the citizen. But the problem being addressed here is independent expenditures on behalf of, or in opposition to, a candidate. In this regard, a "meet & greet event" is a bad example because it is pretty well impossible to do this without coordinating with the candidate, so that would have to reported by the candidate as an in-kind donation. But a letter, or a print advertisement, or a robocall -- with the cost shared among multiple people and done without coordinating with the candidate -- would have to be reported under current law if the amount was in excess of $250. Under the proposed change, this could be done without being reported by anyone, as long as the cost is less than $1000, and two people can do this together without limit. Personally, I can see no good motivation for this change, all it does is reduce transparency. While I wouldn't favor it, I could possibly see a spousal exception to the PAC formation rule, but in any event that's a bad reason to increase the general threshold for formation of a PAC.

I don't actually see how the rules limit citizen involvement, other than by placing caps on donations, which applies to everyone equally. The fact that people might be ignorant of, confused by, or wilfully choose to ignore the law is not a reason to lift the restrictions, it's a reason for people to pay more attention.

Foo Bar - I sure wish you would give your name. Any citizen donation or in-kind donation will, and always will be, reported to the candidate. I am unsure where you are getting your facts, but a group of "people" would become a PAC once they exceed $1,000. The new PAC definition would allow citizens to join together and support a candidate(s) for under $1,000 and yes, they still have to report their expenses to the candidates they support. There is no reduction of transparency here and it encourages citizens to have more opportunities to get involved in the City Election process - a long time concern for City elected officials. Now, why don't you reveal your identity to give your statements credibility? Until you can take this action, I can no longer respond to statements. Come to the Public Hearing on March 18th at City Hall, state your name and address for the record, and you will have your 3 minutes to express your thoughts to the M&CC, the audience in the room, and people watching the meeting on TV.

The statements made by Foo Bar are by one of the current council members or a spouse and from the syntax, I'm sure I know who it is. You should be ashamed of yourself for stooping this low.

Ms. Schimke,

You are correct. Any DONATION must be reported by the candidate. However, independent expenditures by PACs are NOT donations. They are independent expenditures and must be reported by the PAC, not the candidate. In fact, a candidate could not possibly report independent expenditures, because by definition, candidates are not allowed to know the details; if they did they would cease to become independent expenditures. I'd ask you to read the ordinance, in detail, again. Under the proposed changes, two people can spend $999 promoting or opposing a candidate, with it being reported by anyone, as long as they don't discuss it with the candidate's campaign before doing so. And I'm sorry if you dislike me staying anonymous, but if nothing else I think this discomfort underscores my point about why we need the disclosure required by the current law, that will be gutted by these changes.

Make that THREE people can spend $999. Under the proposed ordinance two people could together spend $50,000 without it being reported.

You should be ashamed of yourself and by hiding behind an alias you have proved just how much of a spoiled child you really are. Yes, I do indeed know who you are now. You just cannot hide it--The way you write is like a thumb print.

Jud,
Last campaign season, youand Cathy co-mingled funds and then looped Ryan Spiegel in. Lots of money passing between candidates, common donors through multiple LLCs and spouses, but no accountability because your last reporting deadline was after the deadline to challenge money spent. Very smart on your part - evil genius. Bose is logical to get rid of the complicated hoops to circumvent the law and change the law to make slates more transparent to the public. I can drive a truck through either law by self-financing, creating a venture under the campaign (selling t-shirts, popcorn, or event tickets, perhaps?), or other schemes to flaunt the law if I want. A motivated person can get a dozen people to run for a position and then set up a variety of llcs to fund them... Jud, you flaunted the law and were unethical last time...maybe ill do it next time. I applaud Bose for seeing a few loopholes and fixing them. If Jud wants to operate on the fringes, he is not capitalized well enough to win that battle. You don't have Spiegel or Katz money and I don't think they will empty their pockets for you.

And, if I got signatures and was an "official candidate," my signs don't even have to tout me. All of my signs can read "Jud sucks" as long as I put a tag line at the bottom in small print - it would be less complicated than forming a pac. All I'm saying is Jud should work with Bose and other agencies to improve the situation not hide behind it.

Hey Andrew, i just looked and confirmed it, Foo Bar is the same person as Detective Vince Korsak from last August's comments about Gaithersburg's Shady Grove Great Indoors annexation. The detective must have forgotten his password. Guess he should have written it on his Gaithersburg Book Festival bookmark for safekeeping.

Tom and Andrew - Thank you for using your real names. I am sure your wives are proud that you do not have to hide behind a code name. I actually thought "Foo Bar" was a typo and he was really trying to type "Food Bar"! Anyhow, Paul says I can call him ANY name I want, just as long as it's not PAC Man!

Dear All,

I'm of course flattered by the attention, but you're barking up the wrong tree. I'm perfectly happy to speak publicly and on-the-record about this and other issues. (Honestly, it's hard to see why anyone would think I'd want to comment anonymously when, in fact, my *public* comments are what largely prompted this conversation.)

For what it's worth, I don't recall speculating that these matters will be "hotly contested." Maybe they will be maybe not, I really have no idea.

My call for public comment was sincere. Comments in this forum don't become part of the official record, so I do hope that all who are interested will either come testify at the public hearing on 3/18, or they'll submit comments to the City in writing. (cityhall@gaithersburgmd.gov)

- Jud Ashman

Where is the part about NOT condoning anonymous attacks Jud? That is sorely missing from your "official" statement and just another part of the continuing "thumbprint." I guess I shouldn't have expected that kind of a gallant statement from you after what I have seen in the past.

In clear and transparent terms, if I contribute $999 to a candidates campaign under the current rules, who reports to whom? Same question under the proposed rules? Same question under current and proposed rules if I contribute $1,100 to candidates campaign. If the current and proposed rules are more complex than this, ya'll need to stop wasting my time on this forum and put together a better forum for educating your constituents. Three days off back and forth and I am no smarter for your comments!!! Think about it!

An individual cannot contribute more than $500 to any campaign under the current or proposed code but several candidates in the previous election found a way around it through seeking funding from same person through multiple LLC's. All reporting by candidates of contributions must go through the Gaithersburg Board of Supervisors of Elections and must then be certified by that body. You can find the full election code in the city website at Gaithersburgmd.gov/elections