Maryland Ethics Law & State Universities’ Loopholes

In Maryland, while state registered lobbyists face strict dollar limits and mandatory public reporting for buying meals or gifts for elected officials, University System of Maryland (USM) staff and administration may distribute sports and other event tickets to legislators without having to report the gifts.

Maryland law routinely fails to track the actual distribution network of perks from USM. When a private donor donates to USM for a suite or sports tickets, and in turn the university hands those tickets to a lawmaker, the law treats it as an exempt, anonymous gift from a state institution rather than tracking it back to its private donor source.

This practice exists by routing private booster wealth through non-profit foundations, the money legally loses its identity as private wealth, morphing instead into an exempt "state asset." In addition, because university advocates are legally categorized as public servants rather than registered lobbyists, their distributions are classified as "official state hosting" rather than personal gifts.

The following breakdown details the legal mechanisms that protect this pipeline of influence. It compares Maryland's lax standards to models in other states and provides a possible legislative blueprint for closing the structural loopholes within the Maryland Public Ethics Law.

The Legal Structure of the Loopholes

The practice of university government relations staff providing sports and other event tickets to legislators operates under the law set by the General Assembly and overseen by the State Ethics Commission.

Under Maryland General Provisions Article § 5-704(f)(3), an individual cannot be both a state employee and a registered lobbyist. This is known as the Dual-Status Ban.

• When university government relations staff lobby the state legislature, they act in their official capacity as public servants, not as "regulated lobbyists."
• Because they cannot register as lobbyists, they are legally barred from using the State Ethics Commission’s lobbyist reporting system.

The Maryland Public Ethics Law defines a "gift" as a transfer of personal property or a benefit paid for by private funds.

• USM sports programs rely heavily on private donors. However, donors do not give directly to the athletic department; they give to 501(c)(3) entities like the University of Maryland College Park Foundation.
• Once private donations enter the foundation or university accounts, they legally lose their identity as "private individual wealth" and become state-owned assets used to build luxury boxes and run programs.
• When a university employee hands a ticket to a legislator, the law views it as a state agency hosting a state official to witness state programs and infrastructure firsthand. It does not trigger the definition of a private lobbyist gift.

Even as high-value entertainment, the tickets fall under statutory exceptions:

• § 5-505(c)(2)(viii): Allows elected officials to accept tickets from the person sponsoring or conducting the event as an official courtesy. Because USM runs the stadiums and teams, they are the legal sponsor.
• To avoid the appearance of illegal "intent to influence," attendance is framed as official state oversight. The Joint Committee on Legislative Ethics permits lawmakers to accept tickets on state property if it serves a legislative purpose (e.g., evaluating university infrastructure or operations).
• The "Widely Attended Event" Loophole: Under § 5-505, a legislator can accept tickets anonymously if an entire legislative unit or regional delegation is invited. Providing tickets to an "all-delegation" skybox is categorized as an institutional briefing, bypassing the individual line-item tracking required of corporate lobbyists.

Why the Loopholes Persist

Despite occasional reform bills, two barriers routinely block changes to the law:

• USM argues that their government relations teams do not "lobby" but rather provide vital institutional data and academic feedback. 
• They contend that adding a lobbyist compliance layer would diminish communications between state agencies.
• The General Assembly regulates itself. Passing a law to cut off access to executive suites, sports tickets, and campus galas requires lawmakers to vote directly against their own long-standing institutional perks.

Possible Legislative Reforms

To close these loopholes, the Maryland General Assembly would have to restructure the Public Ethics Law through these possible amendments:

1. Modify § 5-702(b)(1)(i) which currently grants a blanket exemption to public employees acting in their official duties and add a carve-out:

"...excepting employees of the University System of Maryland whose primary job responsibilities include legislative advocacy."

2. Repeal the Dual-Status Ban by amending or striking the line in § 5-704(f)(3) to allow for the legal creation and registration of a "State Agency Lobbyist."

3. Amend § 5-705 to mandate transparency for state-owned accommodations. New language would need to target reporting requirements under subsections (b) and (c):

§ 5-705(b)(2) A report required by this section shall include:

(xi) the value of any ticket, admission, or non-monetary accommodation to a collegiate athletic or entertainment event extended to an official or employee, if the ticket or admission was funded, procured, or donated, in whole or in part, by a private individual, corporate entity, or university-affiliated foundation.

§ 5-705(c)(3) Notwithstanding any other provision of this subsection, a gift reported under subsection (b)(2)(xi) of this section must be allocated to the individual recipient and reported by name, regardless of cumulative value.

4. Narrow legislators’ gift exceptions by amending § 5-505 to state that lawmakers cannot accept sporting or entertainment tickets from any public entity by stripping away the "ceremonial/official courtesy" cover regardless of whether it is framed as an official university function.

Comparative State Models

Other jurisdictions have regulated this gray area to prevent public universities from acting as conduits for private donor influence:

Conclusion

Reforming institutional loopholes will be tough largely due to the "hands-off" attitude toward USM, reinforced by the fact that many state legislators are proud alumni. However, the current laws allow a shadow network of private booster wealth to bypass the ethical standards imposed on all other special interest groups and in turn gives the USM administration undue influence over legislators.

By closing loopholes and mandating individual disclosure for foundation-funded perks, Maryland can align itself with more transparent models like those in other states.

To achieve these reforms will require engagement with legislative leadership to find what reforms may be possible. We must demonstrate that true transparency does not hinder institutional communication or outreach, it simply ensures that public entities cannot use private or state funds to influence elected officials.

Article by AFT Maryland staff
July 2026