Serious questions about campaign donors and public legal bills strengthen Jim Rutledge’s case.
Anthony Brown wants another four years as Maryland’s attorney general. I think one term is enough. The latest reporting on his office’s payments to campaign donors gives voters a very good reason to take a hard look at the alternative, Jim Rutledge.
The Center Square reports that Brown’s office paid roughly $985,000 to Ballard Spahr and $302,000 to Saul Ewing. Both law firms contributed to his campaign: $5,000 from Ballard Spahr and $12,000 from Saul Ewing throughout various election cycles. The billing records request covered January 2023 through May 20, 2026.[1] foxbaltimore.com
Put those figures together: nearly $1.3 million in public payments. This is your money, Maryland taxpayers; time to wake up. $17,000 in campaign contributions from said law firms; this is serious money. Marylanders are entitled to know how these relationships were managed, especially when the elected official involved is the state’s chief legal officer.
Brown’s office says the previous administration selected both firms through a competitive process and that his administration did not choose them. Fair enough. That is a substantial point in his favor, and leaving it out would be dishonest. The reporting also does not prove that contributions purchased contracts.[1] foxbaltimore.com
Even so, I’m not satisfied. An inherited contract can explain why a firm was hired. It cannot, by itself, explain every decision that followed. Once you take over an office, supervising its business becomes your responsibility. Anybody who has ever been handed somebody else’s unfinished work knows how that goes.
Maryland taxpayers and I certainly would like to know who approved the work. Who reviewed the invoices? Were the agreements renewed or expanded? What rules kept campaign fundraising separate from those decisions? These are questions an elected official should expect. Answering them clearly would do more for public faith than arguing over who started the relationship.
This is an obvious judgment issue. When firms doing business with your office also help finance your election, people will wonder about access and influence. An attorney general ought to understand that before a reporter starts asking questions. Avoiding that doubt should be part of the job.
Think about the person paying those bills through taxes. This screams Tammany Hall, Democrats. That person may never attend a political fundraiser, hire a lobbyist, or have a lawyer’s phone number saved in their contacts. They still have a stake in every dollar the state spends. They deserve an explanation they can follow without a law degree.
So, show the taxpayers the paperwork. Make the contracts and relevant billing records readily available, subject to legitimate legal protections. Or will the AG take a page from the Mayor of Baltimore’s playbook and claim the information is privileged? Explain any renewals. Identify who signed off. Give an independent reviewer enough information to determine whether taxpayers received fair value. Those are reasonable expectations when public money is involved.
And spare voters the idea that they need proof of a crime before they can decide they have seen enough. Choosing an attorney general involves judging competence and discretion. A voter can accept that no corrupt bargain has been established and still decide the incumbent has lost their confidence.
Jim Rutledge gives Maryland a choice. The Maryland State Board of Elections lists him as the Republican candidate for attorney general.[2] Voters who want a change have somewhere to put that vote. elections.maryland.gov
Rutledge’s campaign points to decades of legal practice and stresses fighting crime, protecting vulnerable people from scammers and cyber predators, and defending Maryland’s Constitution.[3] Those are useful priorities for an office with serious work to do. They deserve a hearing. electjim.com
I want Rutledge to go further on this issue. Tell voters how he would handle contributions from outside counsel. Commit to clear contracting rules and meaningful disclosure. Make it easy for the public to check whether the office is following its own standards.
I would expect him to live by those promises. Republicans should have no interest in replacing one uncomfortable arrangement with another bearing their party’s label. If Rutledge wins, scrutiny should follow him into office.
Brown’s explanation deserves to be heard. It does not earn him an automatic renewal. In my judgment, these reported financial relationships leave serious questions about whether his approach meets the standard Maryland should demand.
Four more years is a substantial vote of confidence. I would allow Jim Rutledge to earn it through his service.
Maryland, vote Jim Rutledge for Attorney General. Learn more at www.electjim.com.
Endnotes
- Mark Stricherz, The Center Square. “Maryland AG paid $1.3M to law firms that donated to Brown.” FOX45 News, September 30, 2026. Includes the financial figures and Brown’s office response.
https://foxbaltimore.com/news/local/maryland-attorney-general-paid-law-firms-that-donated-anthony-brown - Maryland State Board of Elections. “2026 Gubernatorial General Election State Candidates List.”
https://elections.maryland.gov/elections/2026/general_candidates/2026_GG_statewide_candidatelist.html - Friends of Jim Rutledge. “Jim Rutledge for Attorney General.” Campaign source for his stated experience and priorities.
https://electjim.com/
Mitch Baxter is a contributing editor at Direct Line News.
Direct Line News is a Maryland-based free-access publication committed to the Republican reform tradition.
About The Author
