The Bottom Line
This bill came down to a simple question: Should developers with projects in front of the County be allowed to donate to the officials making decisions on those projects?
The idea that basic disclosure and transparency are "too burdensome" doesn't reflect how County government already operates. These standards already exist. This bill would have applied them where public trust matters most.
100% of public testimony supported this bill. It was still voted down without discussion.
The Problem: Developer Money
Developers with projects pending before Anne Arundel County government are writing checks to the same elected officials who will vote on those projects. James Kitchin supports Bill 23-26 to end that. He is the only candidate for County Executive who isn't taking developer money.
The Solution: Bill 23-26
What does this bill do? Introduced by Councilmember Lisa Rodvien on March 19, 2026.
Bans Developer Contributions
Property owners with a subdivision or zoning application pending before the County may not contribute to Council members, the County Executive, or candidates for either office.
Requires Return of Past Donations
All donations made within 2 years of a pending application must be returned, or the council member must recuse themselves from the vote.
Covers the County Executive
The County Executive must return any prohibited contributions before the Council votes on zoning, text amendments, or development applications.
Mandatory Disclosure
Applicants must disclose all campaign contributions by themselves, family, agents, or affiliated entities within the prior 2 years.
Real Enforcement
Donors who violate the ban face misdemeanor charges, up to $1,000 in fines and one year imprisonment. The Ethics Commission can void official actions.
Protects Residents
When developers can't write checks to the officials deciding their projects, land use decisions start reflecting what communities actually need.
What Happened
On April 20, 2026, Bill 23-26 went before the Anne Arundel County Council. 100% of the public testimony was in favor of this bill. Yet somehow, it failed without discussion.
It confirms what our residents already know: the playing field is not even.
Rally for Our Voice
County Council Hearing
Read the Public Testimony
Every piece of written testimony submitted for the April 20 hearing is public record. 100% was in favor of Bill 23-26. Read it yourself.
We encourage you to read the bill for yourself, read the public testimony, watch the County Council meeting, and draw your own conclusions.
Fact Check: What's Being Said vs. What the Bill Actually Did
Our residents are smart. They know their communities better than anyone. While nearly all of the community member comments have been in favor of this bill, here are some of the claims special interests are pushing out. Here are the facts. Decide for yourself.
We also encourage you to read the bill for yourself and watch the County Council meeting.
Claim "This was a public finance bill."
- This bill did not change the public campaign financing system.
- It addressed a separate issue: whether developers with projects pending before the County, or with legislation before the Council that would impact their property/project, should be allowed to donate to the same officials making decisions on those projects.
- Developers without business before the county can still donate to local officials and candidates up to the $6,000 max allowed by state law.
Claim "This bill was designed to help one candidate."
- There is nothing in the bill that benefits or targets any specific candidate.
- The bill sponsor, Councilwoman Rodvien, even offered an amendment that would have delayed the effective date of the bill to the NEXT campaign cycle. The bill, had her amendment been adopted, would not have impacted any candidate.
- The purpose of the legislation was to address perceived conflicts of interest and strengthen trust in government.
Claim "The bill was poorly thought out."
The bill included clear, standard provisions such as:
- Restricting donations from developers with active applications
- Requiring disclosure of related contributions
- Requiring recusal or return of donations in certain situations
Claim "This creates a complicated or burdensome system."
The type of disclosure and reporting in this bill is already required across Anne Arundel County government.
Appointed board and commission members, candidates, and public officials are already required to complete detailed financial disclosure forms under Article 7 of the County Code. These forms require individuals to report:
- Real estate holdings
- Business interests and ownership stakes
- Gifts and financial relationships
- Debts tied to entities doing business with the County
- Employment and income sources
Claim "This bill unfairly targets certain candidates."
- The bill would have been applied based on whether someone had business before the County, not based on what type of campaign any particular candidate was running.
- Again, the bill's sponsor offered an amendment to delay implementation to the NEXT campaign cycle.
Claim "The timing of the bill makes it suspect."
- Concerns about developer influence and public trust have existed for years.
- County Executive Steuart Pittman has publicly shared that similar legislation was considered earlier but viewed as politically difficult at the time.
Official Sources
Everything here is public record. Verify it yourself.
Legislative Timeline
- March 19, 2026
Introduced & first reading
- April 20, 2026
Public hearing held. Bill voted down by the County Council.
Official Documents
Fiscal impact: None. The County Ethics Commission can manage these requirements with existing staff.
Official County Page
View the full legislative record, vote results, and status updates on the Anne Arundel County Council website.
View on AACounty.orgWhat James Is Fighting For
- Support for Bill 23-26 - a ban on contributions from developers and property owners who have business pending before the County
- Return of past donations - any contributions made within 2 years of a pending application must be returned, or the official must recuse from the vote
- Mandatory disclosure - applicants must disclose all campaign contributions by themselves, family, agents, and affiliated entities
- Real enforcement - violations treated as conflicts of interest, with misdemeanor charges, fines up to $1,000, and the power to void official actions
- 100% publicly financed campaign - James is the only candidate running entirely on the public financing system, no corporate money, only small-dollar donations up to $250
- Transparency in land use decisions - county residents should know who is funding the officials making decisions about how their communities grow