Thiru Vignarajah’s edgy use of public campaign money spurs new legislation

Thiru Vignarajah used public money when he ran for mayor in 2024. When he dropped out and endorsed another candidate, it seemed that he’d have to give it all back. Thanks to a quirk in the law, he didn’t.

Call it a workaround, a loophole — a Thiruphole, even. Vignarajah outsmarted the system.

City Council member Zac Blanchard is determined not to let it happen again.

In two new pieces of legislation, Blanchard has proposed tweaks to the city’s 7-year-old public financing law. He wants to require candidates to return all public money if they endorse another candidate in their race or announce their withdrawal, even if they never formally back out, as was the case with Vignarajah.

“If you’re endorsing someone for Office A, the city should not also be giving you taxpayer dollars to run for Office A,” Blanchard said of the loophole. “That’s it.”

Vignarajah said in a recent interview that the hoopla felt “more political than principled.”

Blanchard himself relied on public campaign funds when he ousted incumbent council member Eric Costello in a close race in 2024.

That election was Baltimore’s first to offer public campaign funds. Candidates can access that money if they agree not to accept individual donations over $150. They’re also not permitted to take money from PACs, corporations and unions.

Vignarajah, a prolific fundraiser in past races for mayor and state’s attorney, raised eyebrows when he announced that he would make a mayoral run with public money. But public campaign funds are for established candidates and newbies, incumbents and challengers alike.

“It gets big money out of politics, and it just generally promotes confidence in our electoral system,” Blanchard said.

His proposed changes to the election fund include imposing a surcharge on private parking lots to pay for it and reducing the maximum amount available to a mayoral candidate.

Vignarajah’s exit from the mayoral race prompted outcry and a push for reform. After a joint news conference, Vignarajah teamed with former Mayor Sheila Dixon for an awkward 14 days on the campaign trail.

He didn’t directly spend any of his $668,881 in public money on Dixon, but Vignarajah redeployed his publicly funded campaign team and other resources in support of a traditionally financed candidate.

Dixon had the backing of power brokers like David Smith, chairman of Sinclair Broadcast Group, and real estate mogul John Luetkemeyer. She lost the race to Mayor Brandon Scott.

Backlash to that sequence of events was swift. Good government groups called on Vignarajah to return all of his public money and admonished him for endorsing another candidate — a move they said violated the intent of the law. (Not the law itself, though, it turns out.)

City Council member Kristerfer Burnett, the author of the legislation that created the fund, argued that Vignarajah’s actions were an actual violation of the law. In a letter sent to city attorneys at the time, he asked for an analysis.

Ultimately, the board governing the fair election fund demanded only that Vignarajah’s unspent funds be returned. Vignarajah complied, returning $201,000.

Any loopholes in the city’s public financing law can erode public trust, said Emily Scarr, a senior adviser to Maryland PIRG, a group that lobbied for the creation of the fund.

“We are using public funds, and while I think it’s the most valuable use of public funds, its vulnerability is also that it’s public funds,” she said. “That makes any appearance of malfeasance or actual problems more of a problem.”

Vignarajah wondered if the outcry would have been the same if he had endorsed Scott, who also accepted PAC and corporate money. And he questioned whether Blanchard’s proposal would essentially force candidates who have realized they are not viable to run through the finish line on the public’s dime.

“Creating asymmetries, or disadvantages or constraints on publicly financed candidates that don’t apply to traditional candidates seems to run against that overall goal” of getting big money out of races, he said.

Blanchard’s legislation would make several changes to the election fund.

The proposed new dedicated funding stream would add a 5% surcharge on top of the city’s 20% tax on private parking lots. Now the public financing relies on money from the city budget but has no dedicated funding stream.

He also wants to lower the maximum contribution to a mayoral candidate from $1.5 million to $1 million.

And under the new legislation, publicly funded candidates could draw limited money from the fund before they have an opponent. That would keep incumbents from boxing out opposition by waiting until the last minute to file their candidacy, he said.