For much of the past year – even before he formally announced last June that he would seek a third term – the perception among the county’s political establishment has been that the 2014 race for county executive is Ike Leggett’s to lose.
The latest round of campaign finance reports, released late Wednesday and covering the prior 12 months of fundraising efforts, seems certain to reinforce that notion.
It’s not only that Leggett has a nearly 3-1 lead in cash on hand–$971,000 to $330,000 for his leading rival, former County Executive Doug Duncan – with barely five months until the June 24 primary. There’s also the breadth of support encompassed in the list of donors attached to Leggett’s latest filing.
Whether out of affection for the incumbent or fear of being caught on the wrong side of local politics (a few business interests – including the Lerner family, co-owners of the White Flint Mall—do appear to be hedging their bets by donating to both Leggett and Duncan), Leggett’s report shows him drawing financial support from individuals and groups ranging from construction and real estate development firms to civic activists to local elected officials.
Included are three of eight sitting members of the Montgomery County Council. Among the better known names in the private sector: Potomac billionaire Mitchell Rales, whose family and businesses associates donated a total of $20,000.
“We’re very proud of the campaign that Ike is running, and the high level of his support is reflected in the large amount that we have in our report,” said Leggett campaign treasurer Larry Rosenblum.
For its part, the Duncan campaign moved quickly to underscore its own base of support by unveiling the endorsement of the Montgomery County Career Firefighters Association barely 12 hours after filing its campaign finance report. “Doug is an excellent proven leader and will bring fresh, innovative ideas rather than providing more of the same, which has simply not been working,” declared the local association’s president, Jeff Buddle.
The firefighters’ endorsement was not a major surprise; the Duncan campaign report shows the group donating $6,000 over the past year. The endorsement also does not appear to presage any immediate moves by other county labor groups, several of which have had a bumpy relationship with Leggett in recent years.
In fact, several insiders perceived the timing of the firefighters’ announcement as little more than an effort by the Duncan camp to change the subject from the newly released campaign finance numbers.
Some close to the Duncan campaign sought to put the best possible face on those numbers, noting that their candidate, as a non-incumbent, had taken in nearly two-thirds of what was raised by the incumbent: Over the past 12 months, Duncan reported total receipts of almost $424,000, as compared to about $658,000 for Leggett. The list of Duncan donors does indicate that, while it has been seven years since he left office after three terms, the former county executive retains the loyalty of a number of the major business and corporate players who prospered during his tenure.
The family and corporation of one well-known name, J. Willard Marriott, gave, a total of $7,000, while Foulger-Pratt, the development firm for whom Duncan worked as a consultant after leaving the county executive’s office, donated $4,000.
“We’re very excited about our position,” Duncan’s campaign manager Kurt Staiger said of campaign finance numbers. But one long-time observer of county politics, echoing several others, questioned whether the figures in Duncan’s latest report might discourage many of the players in his corner from ponying up further dollars as the campaign season intensifies.
“For the potential donor, particularly those from the business sector, it sends a troubling message [on whether] giving to Duncan will be a wise investment,” said this source, who has not taken sides in the executive’s race. “The really bad news is that he has spent so much money in this cycle – and what [does he have] to show for it?”
The Duncan campaign’s 12-month expenditure of more than $337,000 represents more than three-quarters of what it raised during the same period; by comparison, Leggett, reported about $106,000 in expenses, with most of that coming after his re-election announcement in June.
Duncan’s spending included about $200,000 in salaries; the candidate’s son, John Duncan, the campaign’s political director, alone received more than $90,000 in pre-tax income, based on the latest filings. Another $80,000 in fees went to a fundraising consultant.
One person outside the campaign said the report shows a dearth of expenditures for advertising and other activities designed to reach potential voters. Sources close to the Duncan effort defended the spending as necessary to start up a campaign without the advantage of incumbency, while saying the expenditures reflected such activities as developing lists for social media contact and organizing more than 50 “meet and greets” at which the candidate has appeared.
County Councilmember Phil Andrews, the third candidate in the race for the Democratic nomination, largely met expectations in this week’s filings by finishing far back of his two opponents. He raised about $107,000 over the last 12 months, with $119,000 now in his campaign treasury. Andrews, who refuses contributions from development interests or labor unions, continues to pursue a door-to-door strategy in his longshot bid.
“Most pundits forget that the money raised on campaigns is used to communicate with voters,” he observed. “By my count, I’m over 17,000 doors ahead of the others in the race.”
To access the full campaign finance reports filed by Andrews, Duncan and Leggett, click on the below link on the Maryland Board of Election site: https://campaignfinancemd.us/Public/ViewFiledReports?theme=vista
