By MDBayNews Staff
Maryland’s campaign finance laws are often described as some of the more structured and disclosure-driven in the country. Governed by Title 13 of the Election Law Article and administered by the Maryland State Board of Elections, the system is designed to balance free political participation with guardrails against corruption and undue influence.
On paper, it mostly works. In practice, a long-recognized loophole around “exploratory committees” continues to test public trust—and has now landed squarely in the General Assembly’s lap.
How Maryland Campaign Finance Is Supposed to Work
Under current law, Maryland imposes clear contribution limits once a candidate officially declares:
- Individuals, businesses, unions, and PACs may give up to $6,000 per recipient per four-year election cycle.
- PAC-to-candidate contributions are capped at the same $6,000 level.
- Party central committees face additional formulas tied to registered voters.
- Aggregate contribution caps no longer exist, following the U.S. Supreme Court’s McCutcheon v. FEC decision, but per-recipient limits remain enforceable.
Candidates and committees must file detailed disclosure reports through the MD CRIS system, showing who gave, how much, and how the money was spent. Independent expenditures above $5,000 also trigger reporting requirements. For official campaigns, transparency is robust.
Maryland also offers public financing for gubernatorial races through the Fair Campaign Financing Fund, though participation is voluntary and limited to Governor–Lieutenant Governor tickets.
The “Exploratory Committee” Gap
The problem arises before someone becomes an official candidate.
Maryland law does not clearly regulate exploratory or “testing the waters” committees. Based largely on advisory interpretations rather than explicit statute, individuals may raise and spend money to gauge political viability without:
- registering a committee,
- disclosing donors,
- or complying with standard contribution limits.
Once the individual formally declares, the exploratory committee can transfer only up to $6,000 to the candidate committee—but whatever was raised and spent beforehand may never be fully visible to voters.
This is the “glaring hole” highlighted in a 2025 Baltimore Sun investigation and renewed during Sen. Steve Hershey’s early discussions about a potential gubernatorial run against Gov. Wes Moore. Even Hershey acknowledged the system allows unlimited, undisclosed fundraising under the guise of exploration.
Good-government groups, including Common Cause Maryland, argue this undermines the spirit—if not the letter—of Maryland’s transparency laws.
HB 157: Closing the Loophole?
House Bill 157, sponsored by Delegates Julie Palakovich Carr and Dana Jones and cross-filed as SB 65 by Sen. Cheryl Kagan, aims to bring exploratory committees under the same rules as other political committees.
Key provisions would:
- require exploratory committees to formally register,
- impose standard contribution limits and disclosure requirements,
- restrict spending to bona fide exploratory activities like polling or research,
- and require fair-market-value transfers of any assets to a future candidate committee.
The bill is designated as an emergency measure and is scheduled for a hearing in early February. A similar proposal passed the Senate unanimously in 2025 but stalled in the House.
Notably, the bill has drawn little organized opposition so far and has shown bipartisan appeal—suggesting the issue is less about ideology and more about basic fairness.
A Center-Right Perspective: Rules Should Apply Evenly
From a center-right standpoint, this debate shouldn’t be framed as “more regulation versus less freedom.” Maryland already regulates campaigns extensively once candidates declare. Allowing an unregulated, undisclosed pre-candidacy phase simply shifts influence into the shadows.
Transparency protects everyone—voters, donors, and candidates alike. Clear rules reduce suspicion, prevent selective enforcement, and ensure that newcomers without wealthy backers aren’t disadvantaged by insiders quietly stockpiling cash before entering the race.
If Maryland believes disclosure matters after a candidacy is declared, it should also matter in the critical period before voters ever hear a name on the ballot.
HB 157 doesn’t reinvent the system. It simply closes a loophole that most Marylanders—across party lines—already recognize as inconsistent with the state’s stated commitment to transparent elections.
Keep MDBayNews Reporting Free
MDBayNews exists to help Marylanders understand decisions made by state and local leaders — especially when those decisions affect daily life, rights, and public services.
If this article helped clarify what’s happening or why it matters, reader support makes it possible to keep publishing clear, independent reporting like this.
Have a tip or documents to share?
We review submissions carefully and confidentially. Anonymous tips are welcome when appropriate.
Discover more from Maryland Bay News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.