By Michael Phillips | Thunder Report
If you want to understand Maryland politics, stop listening to the speeches about “democracy,” “public service,” and “fighting for working families” for five minutes and look at where the money is actually going.
Because the early 2026 campaign expenditure filings paint a familiar picture: not a citizen-driven political culture, but a heavily insider-controlled system where money is flowing through caucus committees, slates, consultants, payroll vendors, political allies, and a long list of operatives who know exactly how the Annapolis machine works.
Maryland Bay News reviewed the 2026 expenditure data filed through March 15, covering 4,384 spending transactions totaling about $2.74 million. The topline takeaway is blunt: this is not yet a campaign season centered on persuading voters. It is a campaign season centered on feeding the infrastructure of power.
The people benefiting most so far are not ordinary Marylanders trying to figure out how they will pay the electric bill, afford groceries, or keep up with taxes. The people benefiting are party caucuses, political slates, consultants, vendors, campaign workers, and the network of insiders who move money around before most voters have even tuned in.
And while not every questionable expenditure is illegal or improper, there is plenty here that should make any honest observer pause.
The first big story: campaigns are spending heavily on the machine itself
The single largest spending category by far is not voter education, not direct communication with the public, and not even media.
It is transfers out to other Maryland political committees.
That category alone accounts for roughly $1.45 million of the $2.74 million reviewed.
That means more than half of the money in this early spending period is not going directly toward convincing voters. It is going into the political ecosystem itself.
That is a huge tell.
The early 2026 cycle, at least so far, looks less like a democratic contest of ideas and more like a money-routing exercise. Candidates and PACs are moving cash to caucus committees, slates, and allied candidate committees that can later redistribute influence, endorsements, and support.
This is the kind of thing ordinary people hate about politics, and they are right to hate it.
Because when regular voters hear “campaign spending,” they assume campaigns are using money to make their case to the public. In Maryland, a shocking amount of it is being used to strengthen the network behind the curtain.
The biggest recipients show who really matters in Maryland politics
Look at the top recipients and the system becomes painfully obvious.
The biggest payees in the file include:
- No One Left Behind — $250,000
- Democratic Senate Caucus Committee, Maryland — $221,000
- House Democratic Caucus Committee, Maryland — $202,500
- Anne Arundel Democracy Slate — $175,000
- Friends of Joseline Peña-Melnyk — $70,550
- ActBlue — $46,704.87
- Committee to Keep Your Prince George’s County Judges Slate — $44,841.23
- Stripe — $30,723.80
- Gusto — $28,968.48
- Paragon — $25,606.83
One important correction is necessary here. Earlier, the largest single payment, $250,000 to No One Left Behind, might have looked suspicious on its face. It should not be framed that way. No One Left Behind is a legitimate charitable organization supporting Afghan and Iraqi allies eligible for Special Immigrant Visas. The organization itself is not the problem.
But the expenditure still raises a legitimate campaign-finance question: why is a campaign committee making a quarter-million-dollar payment to a charity under “Other Expenses” and “Other”? That is not an accusation of wrongdoing. It is a transparency question. Voters should know why campaign money is being spent that way, who approved it, and whether donors understood that use.
That distinction matters. We should be honest where honesty is due.
But the larger pattern remains damning: the rest of the top recipients are overwhelmingly parts of the political machine.
The Democratic Senate Caucus. The House Democratic Caucus. Major slates. Major payment processors. Major consultants.
That is the story.
The top spenders are exactly who you would expect in a one-party state
The biggest spending committees so far include:
- Aruna Miller — $251,582.46
- Pam Beidle — $182,987.10
- Bill Ferguson — $174,288.57
- Marc Korman — $104,218.16
- Wes Moore — $94,871.72
- Craig Zucker — $60,111.92
- Ben Barnes — $54,784.57
- David Moon — $51,520.66
- AFSCME Working Families Fund — $51,500
- Hospital Association PAC, Maryland — $45,025
That list is not a list of insurgents. It is not a list of reformers storming the gates. It is a list of people and institutions already sitting at the table.
Maryland’s early spending is being dominated by incumbents, leadership figures, organized labor, and major institutional PACs. Again, none of that is shocking. But it says everything about how power is actually structured here.
This is what one-party dominance looks like in practice. The establishment raises first, spends first, consolidates first, and leaves challengers fighting over scraps.
The caucus transfer racket is hiding in plain sight
The most revealing transactions are not subtle at all.
Some of the biggest include:
- Pam Beidle → Anne Arundel Democracy Slate — $175,000
- Bill Ferguson → Democratic Senate Caucus Committee — $165,000
- Marc Korman → House Democratic Caucus Committee — $100,000
- Ben Barnes → House Democratic Caucus Committee — $50,000
- David Moon → House Democratic Caucus Committee — $50,000
- Craig Zucker → Democratic Senate Caucus Committee — $50,000
- Pam Queen → District 14 Team Slate — $25,000
This is where the rhetoric about grassroots democracy starts to look especially ridiculous.
The money is moving upward and sideways into caucus structures and slates that help leadership maintain leverage. These are power-maintenance expenditures.
Caucus committees are not neutral civic institutions. They are instruments of control. They reward loyalists, support preferred candidates, and reinforce the dominance of those already in charge.
In Maryland, the caucus transfer system functions like political dues for people who want to remain in good standing with the ruling class.
And that should bother anyone who thinks elections are supposed to belong to voters rather than an incumbent class.
Slates remain one of the murkiest features of Maryland politics
Maryland’s slate system remains one of the least understood and most insider-friendly parts of the state’s campaign structure.
Several slate committees are soaking up large sums:
- Anne Arundel Democracy Slate — $175,000
- Committee to Keep Your Prince George’s County Judges Slate — $44,841.23
- District 14 Team Slate — $25,000
- Together for a Better Maryland Slate — $7,000
Slates can be sold as efficient. They can be sold as collaborative. They can be sold as helpful to voters. But in practice they often function as gatekeeping tools, bundling candidates into approved political packages and channeling money through tightly networked operations.
That may be legal. It may even be common. But let’s stop pretending it is clean and simple.
When voters see a candidate’s name on a ballot, they generally assume they are voting for that candidate. They do not realize how often that candidate is financially entangled with a slate, a caucus, or an insider alliance that shapes who gets boosted and who gets buried.
In a healthier political culture, that would be a scandal.
In Maryland, it is Tuesday.
The consulting class is getting fed before the voters are
The file also shows a familiar consultant-and-vendor ecosystem already cashing in.
Some of the top non-transfer recipients include:
- Paragon — $25,606.83
- Martin Lauer & Associates — $21,005.69
- Adeo / Adeo Advocacy LLC — more than $34,900 combined
- ActBlue — $46,704.87
- Stripe — $30,723.80
- Gusto — $28,968.48
- BluePrint Interactive — $5,000
- Simon Strategies — $5,000
- Rice Consulting / Rice Consulting LLC — more than $16,000 combined
Some of this is standard campaign spending. Processing donations costs money. Payroll costs money. Consultants cost money.
But the point is not that campaigns use consultants. Of course they do.
The point is that before the average Maryland voter has seen much persuasion, debate, or outreach, the consultant class is already being paid. The infrastructure gets fed first.
That is the logic of modern machine politics: the system must sustain itself before it bothers trying to talk to the public.
Wes Moore’s operation shows what a modern establishment campaign looks like
Governor Wes Moore’s committee is one of the biggest spenders so far, and the spending pattern is instructive.
Some notable Moore expenditures include:
- Paragon — $18,020.18 for credit card service processing charges
- Gusto — $11,811.82 for employment taxes
- China Garden Restaurant — $10,950 for fundraiser food and beverage
- Owens, Ronald — $5,472.92 for campaign manager wages
- Onyx Associates of Maryland — $5,000 listed as consulting fees, with a return notation
- Hwang, Annie — more than $4,800 combined in wages, mileage, benefits, and reimbursements
This is what a well-oiled political operation looks like: processors, payroll, staff, consultants, fundraisers, catering.
Again, none of that is inherently improper. But it reveals priorities.
Marylanders are constantly told that the political class is urgently focused on affordability, accountability, and results. Yet campaign spending shows a class that remains very focused on maintaining a professionalized political apparatus around itself.
Some payments are not illegal, but they still deserve scrutiny
There are several kinds of expenditures in the data that are not necessarily scandalous, but absolutely raise eyebrows.
1. Large self-payments and reimbursements
There are multiple instances where committees paid the candidate directly or reimbursed the candidate personally. Examples include:
- Sara Love → Sara Love — $3,209.91 under “Other Expenses” / “Other”
- Arthur Ellis → Arthur Ellis — roughly $2,914.68 under “Other Expenses” / “Other”
- Monique Walker → Monique Walker — $1,663.95 for website development, plus rent and other reimbursements
- Scott Goldberg → Scott Goldberg — $1,200 for “Data Conversion”
- Susan Krebs → Susan Krebs — multiple payments totaling about $1,293.79
- Jud Ashman → Jud Ashman — more than $1,500 combined
Candidates sometimes front costs and reimburse themselves. That happens.
But when reimbursements are coded vaguely as “Other,” or when candidates pay themselves for things like media, software, or general expenses, the public has every right to ask for detail. Transparency should not end at “trust us.”
2. Family-name payments
There are also payments that appear to go to relatives or household members, based on shared surnames or naming patterns. For example:
- Jay Landsman’s committee paid Jennifer Landsman multiple times
- John Urbach’s committee paid Michele Urbach
- Liz Walsh’s committee paid Michael Walsh
- Joshua Stonko’s committee paid Patrick Stonko
That does not prove anything improper. It may all be perfectly lawful and disclosed. But politically, these arrangements always deserve a closer look. Campaigns should not become family cash boxes or soft patronage networks.
3. Giant lump-sum “Other” expenditures
The “Other Expenses” category is the second-largest category overall at nearly $489,000.
That alone should make watchdogs nervous.
When too much money gets dumped into “Other,” the category stops being informative and starts becoming a fog machine.
Some examples include:
- Aruna Miller → No One Left Behind — $250,000, coded as “Other”
- Michael Jackson’s committee → Friends of Darrell Odom — $6,000, coded “Other”
- Michael Jackson’s committee → Citizens to Elect Mark Chang — $6,000, coded “Other”
- Michael Jackson’s committee → Friends of John D.B. Carr — $6,000, coded “Other”
- Anthony Brown → Committee to Elect Aaron Ford — $5,000, coded “Other”
If a committee is making political transfers or significant outside payments, why are so many of them sitting in a vague catchall?
Because vague categories are useful when you do not want ordinary people quickly understanding what happened.
Some spending is just comically tone-deaf
Campaign politics always includes food, events, and hospitality. But some entries still jump off the page.
- Wes Moore → China Garden Restaurant — $10,950 for fundraiser food and beverage
- Johnny Mautz → Russell Insley — $5,000 for fundraiser food and beverage
- CERG 2.0 PAC → Marvin Dickerson — $3,728.28 reimbursed for hall/venue rental
- Nicholas Charles → Jerk at Nite — $1,230.63
Maybe all of it is fine. Maybe every receipt checks out. But the optics are always worth considering, especially when voters are being squeezed economically and politicians keep talking like they are sharing everyone else’s pain.
The political class loves austerity for taxpayers and abundance for itself.
The labor-and-special-interest pipeline is very real
The transfer data also shows how PAC money and organized interests feed allied candidates and committees.
Some notable examples:
- AFSCME Working Families Fund sent money to both Senate and House Democratic caucus administrative accounts
- Sports Betting Alliance sent $6,000 to Shaneka Henson and $44,000 total in transfers
- Hospital Association PAC spent $45,025 total
- Washington Gas Light Company PAC, New Car and Truck Dealers Association PAC, Thoroughbred Horsemen’s PAC, NAIOP Maryland PAC, Bankers PAC, and others are all active
Maryland politicians love to posture as defenders of “the people” against concentrated power. Then you open the expenditure and transfer records and find a parade of trade associations, industry PACs, unions, and institutional committees moving money through the same channels.
This is not a citizen uprising. It is an influence marketplace.
What this spending says about Maryland right now
This file does not show a campaign season focused on persuasion. It shows a campaign season focused on alignment.
Alignment with caucus leadership.
Alignment with slates.
Alignment with consultants.
Alignment with unions and industry PACs.
Alignment with the people who can make or break a political career in a one-party state.
That is why the spending is so revealing.
Campaign expenditures are honest in a way campaign speeches are not. Politicians say one thing in public. Their ledgers tell you what they actually value.
And so far in 2026, what they value is the machine.
The real scandal is how normal this has become
None of this surprises seasoned Maryland political observers. That may be the most depressing part.
The caucus transfers. The slate payments. The vague “Other” coding. The insider vendors. The candidate reimbursements. The family-adjacent payments. The special-interest pipeline. The event spending. The consultant class.
It is all familiar.
The scandal is not merely any one expenditure. The scandal is the culture that treats all of it as routine.
Maryland has spent years under effectively one-party rule, and one-party systems always drift toward entitlement, opacity, and insiderism. Competition weakens. Accountability weakens. Public trust collapses. The people in power start acting like the system exists to protect itself.
The early 2026 spending data looks exactly like what you would expect from that kind of political culture.
The question Maryland voters should ask
Not “is every transaction illegal?”
That is too low a bar.
The real question is this:
Does this look like a political class working for the public, or a political class financing itself?
Because the answer, so far, is not flattering.
Maryland’s voters deserve more than carefully branded campaign emails and staged town halls. They deserve straight answers about why so much early campaign money is going to caucuses, slates, processors, consultants, vague “other” buckets, and insider networks instead of clear, direct engagement with the public.
And until they start demanding those answers, the Annapolis money machine will keep humming along exactly as designed.
Not for them.
For itself.
Keep This Reporting Free
If this work matters to you, please consider supporting it.
Your contribution helps fund independent reporting across our entire network.
Discover more from RIPTIDE
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
