Virginia and Maryland may share a border, but when it comes to their respect for free-speech rights, the two couldn’t be more different.
The Institute for Free Speech recently released its first Free Speech Index, which grades states on their contribution-limit laws for candidates, political parties and political action committees. Virginia scored at the top of the index, earning a perfect A-plus rating. Maryland, however, scored an F, placing the Free State fifth-to-last on the index.
As the Supreme Court has long held, the right to give money to causes and candidates aligning with one’s own beliefs is central to the First Amendment’s promise of free speech. With that in mind, it’s worth exploring what Virginia’s doing right and what Maryland’s doing wrong.
To start, Virginia imposes no limits on political giving. This includes unlimited giving to all state candidates by individuals, committees, parties, unions and corporations. Only four other states in the union share this uniquely unbridled freedom to give, and they’re as politically diverse as they are geographically: Alabama, Nebraska, Oregon and Utah. Six more place no limits on individual donations.
Maryland, on the other hand, imposes extreme restrictions on political giving. Although most states place no limit on how much an individual can give to a party, Maryland takes two bites at the free-speech apple by limiting individuals’ ability to contribute to parties and limiting the amount of support that parties can provide their candidates. And that limit isn’t very high. Individuals, committees, parties, unions and corporations may give only up to $6,000 per four-year election cycle to any candidate for state office. (Before 2013, that limit was even lower at $4,000.) To Maryland’s credit, however, family members of a candidate may make unlimited contributions to their loved one’s campaign.
The above notwithstanding, there is no evidence Maryland has been better served by adopting these onerous limitations on political giving. As of last year, nearly a third of all Marylanders believe corruption is a big problem in state government. In Baltimore, Maryland’s largest city, that number surges to more than half.
Such skepticism of state government is hardly just a perception issue. Early last year, former state delegate William A. Campos (D-Prince George’s) pleaded guilty to performing official favors in return for upward of $50,000 in bribes and kickbacks. Last month, a federal jury convicted former Maryland state delegate Michael L. Vaughn (D-Prince George’s) of bribery and conspiracy after Vaughn was caught taking $15,000 in bribes intended to win his support for liquor sale permit legislation. And just a few weeks later, former state senator Nathaniel T. Oaks (D-Baltimore City) pleaded guilty to federal corruption charges after taking $15,300 in bribes in exchange for aiding a developer who turned out to be an FBI informant.
Virginia has certainly had its own share of corruption, but as Maryland’s slew of corruption incidents demonstrates, the blame does not fall on Virginia’s unlimited-contribution scheme.
Several advantages accompany Virginians’ ability to contribute as much as they please, the foremost of which is enabling new ideas. While the Maryland General Assembly has been ruled by one party for decades, Virginia went from Democratic to Republican and now is nearly split between the two in the state House of Delegates. More competition puts politicians on their toes and ensures that lawmaking bodies remain infused with fresh perspectives. This isn’t just theory; last year, Virginia became the first state in the nation to elect an openly transgender state legislator — a development helped in large part by the candidate’s ability to accept large campaign contributions.
None of this, of course, is necessarily to say that Maryland’s contribution limits caused its corruption problem (although research has concluded that having fewer laws is a more effective reform strategy). But when rights are restricted — particularly one as sacred as free speech — it’s fair that people should expect some measurable benefit for their sacrifice. Maryland clearly hasn’t delivered, and for that, it deserves its failing grade. Virginia, on the other hand, deserves a hearty round of applause.
This post originally ran in Washington Post on April 27th 2018.
