During Maryland’s 2026 congressional primary cycle, four candidates emerged as major self-funders for their respective campaigns.
They were David Trone, April McClain Delany, Robin Ficker, and Quincy Barabee.
Trone is the founder and owner of Total Wine and More.
In 2016, he self-funded a Democratic congressional primary campaign with 13 million dollars in an effort to succeed former Congressman Chris Van Hollen in Maryland’s 8th congressional district. At that time, it set a record for the most expensive self-funded House campaign.
In 2018, Trone self-funded a Democratic congressional primary campaign with 11.5 million dollars in an effort to succeed former three-term U.S. Congressman John Delaney in Maryland’s 6th Congressional District.
In 2024, Trone self-funded a Democratic U.S. Senate primary campaign with 52 million dollars to succeed former U.S. Senator Ben Cardin.
In this election cycle, he self-funded 25 million dollars in a Democratic primary campaign in an effort to reclaim the seat he held in representing the 6th Congressional District.
April McClain Delany is a first term member of Congress, and an attorney. She was a Deputy Assistant Secretary at the U.S. Department of Commerce and was the Director of Common-Sense Media.
This year she has self-funded $5.2 million dollars in a Democratic congressional primary campaign for the 6th Congressional District
Ficker is an attorney who served for one term as a member of the Maryland House of Delegates. He is a perennial candidate who has run in at least twenty campaigns in Maryland.
This year Ficker self-funded 2 million dollars in the Republican primary election also held in the 6th Congressional District.
Barabee is the founder and CEO of a Healthcare Company in Prince George’s County.
This year, she self-funded $5.3 million in the Democratic primary to succeed retiring Congressman Steny Hoyer in the 5th Congressional District.
Exactly who and how much can be donated to federal election campaigns has been and continues to generate contentious debates ever since a 1976 U.S. Supreme Court landmark decision – Buckley vs Valeo. The court ruled that limits on the dollar amounts individuals can contribute to federal candidates were constitutional, but limits on dollar amounts self-funded by a candidate for their own campaign were unconstitutional. All that is required is reporting the self-funding amounts on their candidate campaign finance reports filed with the Federal Election Commission. All that are available for public review.
What’s next?
Will wealthy candidates continue using self-funding for their primary and general elections?
Some will despite uncertain and predictable results.
It depends largely on how large the universe of wealthy Marylanders is who are positioned and willing to self-fund their own political campaigns.
It also depends upon the degree to which voters will support candidates with sufficient wealth to cly self-fund their own political campaigns.
Will self-funded candidates always win?
Not always.
In this Maryland primary election cycle, candidates McClain Delany and Ficker did win.
Candidates Trone and Barabee did not.
Will the U.S. Supreme Court’s Buckley vs Valeo rulings ever be reversed?
Very unlikely
Will current federal rules, regulations, and laws with regard to campaign financing can always be revised in the foreseeable future?
Very unlikely.
As is often the case in the political and legislative arenas there will always be a lot of talk about “reforms” on political campaign spending.
As is almost always the case on this issue, that talk will not result in meaningful if any action.
More than five centuries ago, Italian diplomat, philosopher and astute political observer Nicolai Machiavelli wrote The Prince.
It is a classic treatise with observations on political dynamics that are still relevant today.
Machiavelli wrote: “It must be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things. The innovator has enemies in all those who have done well under the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well under the new. This coolness arises partly from fear of the opponents, who have the laws on their side, and partly from the incredulity of men, who do not readily believe in new things until they have had a long experience of them.
2 Responses
I agree with you that it’s time to put a stop to this. I see your request and raise you one ruling.
We need to get ‘big money’ out of politics, period. Self-funding, personal donors, lobbyists, organizations/institutions, all of it. Funneling donations through PACS does not minimize their power or effect in elevating certain candidates over others purely by means.
We can do this, if there’s an appetite.
Overturning the 2010 Citizens United v. FEC Supreme Court decision along with the earlier 1976 Buckley v. Valeo decision could legally restore the government’s authority to more fairly regulate and limit political spending by corporations, unions, and wealthy individuals – including but not limited to self-funding by candidates.
These rulings, in combination, have produced a doctrine/system:
– Where the First Amendment is invoked to protect those whose speech is already loudest; while offering no remedy to those whose speech is structurally suppressed by lack of private wealth.
– That is arguably not a free speech issue — it’s a property rights issue dressed in First Amendment language. The speech that gets protected is the speech money can buy, which means the protection flows overwhelmingly to those who already have money.
Buckley is essentially a free speech doctrine with a property rights problem hiding inside it; Citizens United is arguably a property rights doctrine that borrowed First Amendment language to legitimize itself.
Buckley is where the flawed premise was first installed, but I would argue that Citizens United is the more egregious case. Let’s simply agree that both need to be overhauled.
What evidence can you cite of a strong relationship between self funding campaign expenditures and victory at the voting polls? Isn’t this a lot of hand wringing about a non problem. Take California as an example where self financed campaigns occur often. Recent research shows no significant relationship between such financing and victory beyond primaries covering the period 2012-2022 and 30 self financing conflicts. (Mason Heron, The Ballot Book August 13 2025. )