Maryland’s Senate is an interesting place. The body as a whole chooses a President who presides over the chamber. The President is given great discretion, not the least of which is the discretion to appoint chairs to the six standing committees of the Senate. These committee chairs wield significant power and influence in the Senate. It is a system that can and has been abused. As the expression goes – power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Senator Joan Carter Conway gave us a prime example this past legislative session when she abused her power as a committee chair over a seemingly straightforward consumer-friendly bill: allowing Maryland citizens to buy wine online from wineries and retailers. This seemingly benign legislation, a consumer right enjoyed by over 80% of Americans in 37 states, was immediately targeted by the liquor wholesalers in Maryland, some of her most generous campaign contributors. Although this legislation was endorsed by an overwhelming majority of legislators throughout the state, it never saw the light of day in Senator Conway’s committee.
Knowing that the public and Senator Conway’s colleagues supported this bill, the liquor lobbyists played their final card, “bottling up” the legislation in Senator Conway’s committee. No matter that seven of the nine committee members pledged their support for it, the chair refused to bring it up for a vote. In fact, Senator Conway went on the record in the Baltimore Sun before the bill was even heard in her committee to say that the bill “is not going anywhere.” How can it be that a single person can hijack something so many people want at the expense of our democracy?
Let me be clear: It’s not about the wine! It’s about the process.
During our district debates, Senator Conway has talked about this issue. She has mentioned several justifications for her action, all of which ring hollow and misleading. She claimed to be concerned about underage drinking even though the 37 other states with legalized wine shipping have lower rates of alcohol abuse. She claimed that the House of Delegates needed to act first, but no Senate procedure requires this. Finally, she made the argument that we, her constituents, are not concerned about this consumer right and dismissed the over 75 letters she received from constituents as not representative of the 43rd District. Interestingly enough, she became the prime sponsor of a bill to require mandatory insurance coverage for an obscure in vitro fertilization procedure after hearing from just two people in the 43rd.
Does she listen to us or not?
Did the thousands of dollars in donations made by liquor interests influence the manner in which this legislation was handled? Can the Senator really accept thousands upon thousands of dollars from lobbyists and not be swayed by her donors? She claims she can take money from anyone and still be impartial. If that is the case, then how does she explain her willingness to champion an issue for two constituents while ignoring the will of the people? Make your voice heard this election season and vote me into office. I promise I’ll listen to you.
