ANNAPOLIS – Maryland’s three most powerful politicians accepted at least $158,650 in campaign contributions and donations from companies with a strong interest in the electric deregulation legislation that passed this year. Critics said the sizeable donations, while perfectly legal, helped usher in a bill that amounted to a “wish list” for utility and coal companies. Campaign finance reports for the 1994-1998 election cycle reveal that utility and coal companies – two industries that will benefit directly from electric deregulation – contributed a combined $88,650 to the separate re- election campaigns of Gov. Parris N. Glendening, Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller Jr., D-Prince George’s, and Speaker of the House Casper Taylor Jr., D- Allegany. The three politicians were responsible for steering the bills through the legislative process. “What’s remarkable about that level of contribution is not just its size,” said Kathleen Skullney, executive director of Common Cause/Maryland, a watchdog group that seeks tighter regulation of political contributions. “I would characterize it as expected … because it is perceived that you make significant contributions if you have important legislation at stake.” The four investor-owned utilities serving Maryland – Allegheny Power, Baltimore Gas and Electric, Conectiv (formerly Delmarva Light and Power), and Potomac Electric Power Co. – contributed a combined $41,300 to the three politicians. Allegheny Power was the biggest giver, donating a total of $15,050 to the three officials. Donating to political campaigns is just part of being a good corporate citizen, said Guy Fletcher, spokesman for Allegheny Power. “Obviously there are many decisions that are made in Annapolis that effect our business,” Fletcher said. “Giving support to political candidates just makes sense. It’s just part of being part of the process.” In addition to corporate and company PAC donations, three of the utilities’ chief executive officers – John Derrick Jr. of PEPCO, Alan Noia of Allegheny Power and Christian Poindexter of BGE – contributed a combined $8,500. “What you see by looking at the political contributions is probably just the tip of the iceberg,” said Skullney. “You would have to look at all of the other kinds of activities that add up to influence. It’s very hard to do.” For example, several utility companies provided corporate sponsorships for Glendening’s inaugural ball in January. BGE, PEPCO and Washington Gas and Light contributed $20,000 each to the $1 million event. Allegheny Power donated $10,000. Not surprisingly, the electric restructuring legislation that passed this year – sponsored by Taylor in the House and Miller in the Senate – was backed in force by utility companies and their lobbyists. Critics claimed that the leaders’ bills were so advantageous for utilities, that the electric industry had written the bills themselves. “Certainly the initial bill that Mike Miller sponsored was a utility bill,” said People’s Counsel Michael Travieso. “While the speaker put a couple of his own provisions in, his bill was also done by utilities.” Taylor, who garnered $34,850 from utility and coal companies, disputed that claim. He said his staff wrote the bill. At a special bill-signing ceremony just before the end of the session, the two legislative leaders and Glendening penned their names to a bill that will bring electric deregulation to Maryland next summer. A moment before the governor put ink to paper, the politicians paused for an official photograph. As they did, some 30 people filed in behind the rich wood table – where the governor, Taylor and Miller were seated – to mug for the camera. The majority of them were lobbyists representing utility companies. “These bills were just pushed through before the ink was barely dry,” said Dan Pontius, executive director of Maryland Public Interest Research Group. “These bills were wish lists for the industries and the utilities and they were pushed through with all the lobbying force and leadership push they could muster.” Glendening, who declined to openly support any of the deregulation bills, used his position throughout the session to act as a referee. He indicated early on that he wanted strong consumer and environmental protections in the bill – proposing a mandated rate reduction of 7.5 percent and placing a surcharge on “dirty” power. “That to me is not the kind of policy advance that someone who is beholden to utility companies is going to push,” said Ray Feldmann, the governor’s press secretary. But by the end of the session, the governor had backed down – accepting a 3 percent rate cut and no firm environmental protections. “It became very clear at the end of the debate that the General Assembly was going to pass out a bill that was less than the governor wanted,” Feldmann said. “At the same time, we understood that the states all around us had passed electric deregulation bills, so it was imperative that we had something in place as well.” That attitude is in sharp contrast to the position Glendening took at the beginning of the session, when he cautioned legislators not to rush into deregulation. “My chief interest…is to make sure that Maryland does restructuring right the first time,” he wrote in a letter to General Assembly leaders. “Once the genie is out of the bottle, it is impossible to put it back in.” There were other considerations as well: bills on Glendening’s legislative agenda – the tobacco tax, sexual orientation and collective bargaining rights – were stalled in Senate committees. In the world of political give-and-take, Glendening had to show that he was willing to support the General Assembly’s efforts on deregulation. “We’re disappointed with the result,” People’s Counsel Travieso said. “The governor obviously had a lot of bills he had to worry about.” -30-
Electric Utilities’ Campaign Contributions Pay Off
