Fight Back MD took in $1.59 million in two weeks and now holds $1.83 million. At least 71% of its net monetary contributions came from donors listing addresses outside Maryland, based on the filings.
By Michael Phillips | MDBayNews
The committee urging Marylanders to vote yes on Question 3 reported $1,588,336 in net contributions for Oct. 5 through Oct. 18, more than twice what it raised in the period before. It ended that stretch with $1,832,075.68 in the bank. The report was filed Oct. 23 but covers only activity through Oct. 18, so that balance is not a current figure.
The biggest check was $800,000 on Oct. 16 from DGA Action PAC. The Maryland filing lists only a Washington address for it and offers no description. The name matches DGA Action, the fundraising committee associated with the Democratic Governors Association, which is registered with the FEC under ID C00503789. MDBayNews has not matched the Maryland entry to a disbursement in the federal committee’s own filings. That one gift equals 35% of the $2,275,529.50 Fight Back MD has raised in net monetary contributions across its three reports.
“That one gift equals 35% of the $2,275,529.50 Fight Back MD has raised in net monetary contributions across its three reports.”
This is a follow-up. MDBayNews reported Oct. 18 that Democracy PAC’s own filing showed $500,000 going to Fight Back MD on Oct. 14, and that the committee’s next report would show whether the money arrived. It did. The gift is listed on Oct. 14, and it ranks second behind the DGA Action PAC check.
Who wrote the checks
The largest sources in the Oct. 5 to Oct. 18 report:
- DGA Action PAC, Washington: $800,000 on Oct. 16.
- Democracy PAC, Washington: $500,000 on Oct. 14. FactCheck.org describes it as a liberal super PAC created by George Soros.
- Yolanda Martinez of Linthicum: $200,000 on Oct. 9. The filing gives her employer as “State of Maryland – Government.”
- AMERIPAC Future, Washington: $100,000 on Oct. 8. FEC records list Rep. Steny Hoyer as its leadership PAC sponsor.
- Mid-Atlantic Laborers’ Political Education Fund: $100,000 transfer on Oct. 16.
- Ning Mosberger-Tang of Boulder, listed as a photographer: $50,000 on Oct. 13.
- Joseline Peña-Melnyk, Friends Of: $30,000 transfer on Oct. 10. Peña-Melnyk is the House speaker.
- Susan Gelman of Baltimore, listed as retired: $25,000 in two $12,500 gifts on Oct. 9.
- Democrats Fight Back PAC, Washington: $20,000 on Oct. 9.
The Martinez entry is the largest from an individual in any of the committee’s reports. The filing does not describe her position or where the money came from, and MDBayNews has not independently confirmed the entry.
Add up all three reports and the picture narrows. Seventeen sources gave $10,000 or more, and together they supplied $2,265,000, or 99.5% of the net total. Every other donor combined gave $10,529.50.
“Seventeen sources gave $10,000 or more, and together they supplied $2,265,000, or 99.5% of the net total.”
Committees listing Washington addresses (DGA Action PAC, Democracy PAC, AMERIPAC Future, National Democratic Redistricting PAC and Democrats Fight Back PAC) account for $1,465,000, about 64%. Add five individuals who list addresses in New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Washington, D.C., and Boulder, who together gave $160,000, and the total reaches $1,625,000, or at least 71% of net monetary contributions. This is based on the addresses contributors listed in the filings. An address is not necessarily where the money originated. The figure is a floor. It leaves out the AFSCME Working Families Fund and the Mid-Atlantic Laborers’ fund, because their transfers carry no address in this filing.
“An address is not necessarily where the money originated.”
This article does not allege any violation. The filings show who is paying, and that is the point.
The $250,000 refund
The AFSCME Working Families Fund sent Fight Back MD $500,000 on Sept. 28. On Oct. 14, the committee returned $250,000 of it. The reason given is one word: “Refund.” The AFSCME fund’s net gift is now $250,000, which is 11% of the total. Before the refund, as of the Oct. 4 close of the prior period, the original transfer was about 73% of the committee’s net contributions.
“The reason given is one word: ‘Refund.’”
Oct. 14 is also the date Democracy PAC’s $500,000 was sent. The filing does not connect the two entries, and neither does this article. The committee has not said why the money came back.
One suite, three committees
The Maryland filings list the same Washington suite, 1032 15th St. NW, Suite 247, for Democracy PAC, AMERIPAC Future and the National Democratic Redistricting PAC. A shared address does not show coordination, and nothing in the filings says these groups acted together. It is still worth noting, since the three committees gave or sent a combined $645,000 to the Maryland campaign.
“A shared address does not show coordination, and nothing in the filings says these groups acted together.”
Where it is going
The committee spent $402,208.92 in the period, up from $41,214.31 in the one before. Four payments make up 99.9% of that:
- $166,171.60 to Pivot Group for mail
- $111,712 to SKDK for television
- $100,000 to SKDK for online advertising
- $24,000 to Color Pro Graphics for signs
The report lists SKDK and Pivot Group at Washington addresses, and together they received $377,883.60, about 94% of the period’s spending. Color Pro Graphics is in Upper Marlboro. The remaining $325.32 is small items: $111.25 to Action Network of Washington for email service, $160 for a venue rental to Active Montgomery of Wheaton, and $54.07 in software and card-processing fees. A vendor’s listed address does not show where its work was done or where ads ran.
Spokesman Luca Amayo told The Baltimore Banner in early October that the committee would spend “six figures” on texts, mailers and a video ad. Total spending is now $443,453.82. About 80% of what the committee has raised is still sitting in the account.
“About 80% of what the committee has raised is still sitting in the account.”
What Question 3 does
Question 3 is a constitutional amendment the General Assembly passed in an Aug. 3 to 5 special session as Chapter 881 of the 2026 laws. It does not draw a map. It would limit the existing Maryland requirements for adjoining territory, compact form, equal population, and due regard for natural and political boundaries to Senate and House of Delegates districts. It would let the General Assembly give the Supreme Court of Maryland original jurisdiction to review the congressional plan. It would also provide that nothing in the Maryland Constitution, including the Declaration of Rights, supplies criteria for the boundaries of a congressional districting plan. WYPR reported that Democrats have eyed a new map that could unseat Rep. Andy Harris, the state’s only Republican member of the U.S. House. Any new map could not be used before 2028.
The Supreme Court of Maryland kept the question on the ballot Sept. 3 in a 5-2 per curiam order. Circuit courts in Anne Arundel and Dorchester counties had enjoined its placement on the ballot, though both stayed their orders pending appeal. The justices held that the circuit courts erred on the timing and single-subject arguments, but agreed that one clause of the ballot wording was misleading. That clause said the amendment “requires the criteria for boundaries of congressional districts to be determined by applicable federal laws.” The court said the clause was not in the bill’s purpose paragraph and ordered that paragraph used as the question’s text instead. Justice Gould, joined by Senior Justice Glenn Harrell, dissented. He wrote that voters reading the new wording would still not understand that a yes vote eliminates rights they now have under the Declaration of Rights. Sen. Johnny Mautz, an Eastern Shore Republican who is also a plaintiff in the Dorchester County case, told WMAR the question “is a point of no return.”
Supporters say Maryland has to answer Republican states that redrew their maps. Gov. Wes Moore has framed a yes vote as a rebuke of President Donald Trump. The committee’s ads, the Banner reported, tell voters the same thing. Most of the committee’s reported net monetary contributions came from donors listing addresses outside Maryland, including $1.465 million from five Washington-based political committees.
What the polls say
Three public polls this fall found support for Question 3 below 50%, according to the Banner. The UMBC Institute of Politics surveyed 776 likely voters Sept. 22 through 27 and found 25% for and 53% against. A poll for Protect Maryland Votes, the group opposing the question, found 28% for, 41% against, and 31% undecided. Fight Back MD’s own poll, from a Democratic-leaning firm, found 40% for, 35% against and 25% undecided. Fight Back MD has said UMBC’s wording tested Republican talking points, and UMBC’s Mileah Kromer defended the question as short and clear.
What to watch
- Early voting runs through Oct. 29, and Election Day is Nov. 3.
- Whether the committee or the AFSCME fund explains the $250,000 refund.
- How much of the $1.83 million gets spent in the last days, and on whom.
Sources: Maryland State Board of Elections, campaign finance reports for Fight Back MD (Filer ID 16020303): 2026 Pre-General 1 Gubernatorial (filed Aug. 25, 2026), 2026 Ballot Issue Gubernatorial (filed Oct. 9, 2026) and 2026 Pre-General 2 Gubernatorial, Amendment Version 2 (filed Oct. 23, 2026); MDBayNews, “Soros-Funded PAC Disclosed $122 Million in a Maryland Filing. Now It Has Sent $500,000 to the Question 3 Campaign,” Oct. 18, 2026; Federal Election Commission, AMERIPAC Future (C00955005) committee profile and Form 1 statement of organization, July 1, 2026; FactCheck.org, “Democracy PAC/Democracy PAC II,” Aug. 2026; Ballotpedia, “Democratic Governors Association”; OpenSecrets, DGA Action (C00503789) committee summary; Sarah Petrowich, “UMBC Poll: majority of Marylanders oppose redistricting amendment, want open primaries,” WYPR, Oct. 7, 2026; Pamela Wood, “TV ad urges Marylanders to ‘vote yes for Wes’ but against redistricting question,” The Baltimore Banner, Oct. 20, 2026; Pamela Wood, “Pro-redistricting ballot question ads hitting airwaves, phones and mailboxes,” The Baltimore Banner, Oct. 9, 2026; Jeff Morgan, “Maryland voters will decide if congressional gerrymandering is allowed,” WMAR, Oct. 6, 2026; Supreme Court of Maryland, per curiam order and dissent of Justice Gould in Maryland State Board of Elections v. Howell and v. Wheatley, Nos. 21 and 22, Sept. 3, 2026; Maryland Matters and Mikenzie Frost, FOX45, on the Sept. 3 ruling and dissent; Maryland State Board of Elections, 2026 general election dates; Maryland Matters, “Peña-Melnyk elected unanimously as House speaker,” Dec. 16, 2025.
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.