To Our Dear Friend Steuart Pittman, Sorry But You Are Simply Not Credible On Public Campaign Finance!

Russett Reader - Anne Arundel County Executive Steuart Pittman

Steuart Pittman has ruined the promise of public campaign finance. It's hard for us to to write that sentence.

For years, Pittman has been the community’s chief evangelist for public campaign finance, promoting it as a way to reduce the obscene influence of corporations and so-called “dark money” in elections. In Anne Arundel County, the concept began with a sense of purpose: a taxpayer-supported system designed to match small-dollar donations and amplify the voices of everyday residents over big business. At its best, it’s a noble effort to level the playing field and strengthen democratic participation.

In his March 20, 2026 weekly newsletter, Pittman wrote that he wants “to preserve the form of government created in our Constitution, the justice that was promised, the separation of powers…” He also criticized the influence of “big oil, military contractors, and pharmaceutical” companies, along with local political action committees (PACs) but especially developers (the same developers who's donations helped get him elected) on elections. Those are familiar—and often valid—concerns. But Pittman’s comments about preserving the integrity of our system struck us as odd and raise serious questions when viewed alongside his own actions. Let's look at two examples.

First, in 2024, Pittman was prominently featured in an AIPAC ad for candidate Sarah Elfreth. That's AIPAC y'all not AFLAC. AIPAC is considered toxic and loathe by an ever increasing number of Democrats critical of the organization's deceptive campaign tactics and unwavering support for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. A recent Politico article show just how toxic AIPAC has become for many Democrats.

Elfreth’s victory was fueled in large part by an extraordinary influx of nearly $5 million from AIPAC’s super PAC, the deceptively entitled “United Democracy Project.” AIPAC's spending on behalf of Elfreth saturated our television, radio, and Facebook feeds, helping propel her to a win despite the fact that many of us still do not know her.

One of her opponents, former U.S. Capitol Police officer Harry Dunn, became a national hero after defending our Capitol and democracy during the January 6 attack. Dunn quite literally stood on the front lines— in front of a racists and a rancid mob of election deniers and MAGA enablers—to fight for "the form of government created in our Constitution" that Pittman claims he wants to preserve. Yet Pittman endorsed Elfreth over Dunn and chose to align himself with an AIPAC campaign fouled by exactly the kind of high-dollar, "dark" money he routinely condemns.

(L: January 6 Hero Harry Dunn; R: Dark Money Digital Ad by AIPAC for Sarah Elfreth Featuring Steuart Pittman)

Secondly, a rather troubling controversy is brewing over one of Pittman's current staffers. James Kitchin is a senior aide running to replace Pittman. Several current and former staffers, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said that Pittman is ignoring the "clean up dirty elections" rhetoric he espouses when it comes to Kitchin. They say that Kitchin's continued presence as a paid staff member for Pittman is an integrity issue too and said that Pittman's "virtue signaling" on the issue masks ethics concerns hiding in plain sight at Arundel Center. Their concerns also extend to other county employees who they say are actively working on Kitchin's campaign. "If Kitchin is showing up to a school or library talking about county services, is he doing that in his capacity as a paid staffer or as someone angling for office?," said a current staff member. "It gets really uncomfortable having to explain that to folks and there are voters who have complained."

Several former staff members for Pittman said that the County Executive has been inconsistent when enforcing ethics about current county employees running for office and that he has almost certainly set the County on course for a lawsuit over Kitchin's continued employment. Several staffers said that there are unresolved questions about whether Pittman forced a former staff member to resign while running for office. "I am concerned by what I see as a double standard by Steuart. I'm in a bit of disbelief actually because of how he has treated this matter with another employee." Citing personnel concerns, the former staffer wouldn't elaborate on who was previously forced to resign while running for office. Their account of the employee's experience however was shared by several, former Pittman staffers.

But the issue goes even further than Kitchin's taxpayer-funded salary, Kitchin is also benefiting from taxpayer-supported contributions through the County’s public campaign finance system—Pittman’s signature initiative. In effect, a senior member of Pittman’s own administration is subsisting and subsidizing his campaign on the taxpayers' dime. That's a really different world y'all and it is unprecedented. Kitchin is the behind-the-closed-door beneficiary of a system his boss created. We can all be forgiven if this is starting to look like a fishy scheme for well-placed government insiders.

At the federal level, this kind of overlap would likely trigger scrutiny under the Hatch Act, which is designed to maintain a firewall between official government duties and political activity. The County's own ethics code forbids an employee from leveraging "county resources (time, supplies, equipment, etc.) to conduct or further any outside business or personal activity, including political and charitable activity, not related" to one's paid position. In addition to being paid by taxpayers and having his campaign subsidized by taxpayers, Kitchin has held or scheduled "listening" tours at several county (tax payer funded) libraries to advance his political campaign for office. How did that happen? It's a troubling stew and does nothing to build confidence in a public campaign finance system.

Pittman has long argued that public campaign finance is a tool to reduce the influence of big business. But in his fouled version, public campaign finance risks becoming something else entirely under his administration: a system where big government and highly paid staffers become the untouchable insiders who dominant our elections. Those contradictions are hard to ignore.

If Pittman wants to preserve the credibility of public campaign finance, he should start by fixing the "Kitchin problem" as one former staffer put it. Anything less undermines public campaign finance and the very democratic reforms he claims to champion.