THE BAKER PARADOX
Baker a Career Built on Outside Money
Rushern Baker is running the same play for the fourth time in a row — and this time he’s attacking the very thing that once kept his career alive.
That’s the story.
Everything else is detail.
I. Three Straight Losses and a Fourth Attempt
After losing the 2018 governor’s race, and then collapsing early in the 2022 governor’s race, Baker came back for the next big opening: the County Executive seat vacated when Angela Alsobrooks went to the U.S. Senate.
He didn’t just lose.
He never broke out of the second tier.
- His fundraising was thin.
- His donor network was exhausted.
- His old alliances were gone.
- His message didn’t land.
This was loss number three.
And true to form, Baker immediately pivoted to the next available office:
Steny Hoyer’s congressional seat.
The biggest seat available.
The biggest stage left.
The same pattern he’s followed for 20 years.
II. The Money Problem That Never Went Away
Baker has never been a strong fundraiser.
Not in 2002.
Not in 2006.
Not in 2010.
Not in 2018.
Not in 2022.
Not now.
His entire rise depended on outside money — especially from Montgomery County’s development and political networks.
That wasn’t a secret.
It wasn’t a scandal.
It was simply the truth.
The Leggett–Hillman Pipeline
- Ike Leggett opened the door.
- Jewish Business Leader David Hillman and others wrote the checks.
- Baker rode that support into the County Executive’s office in 2010.
Hillman didn’t die until 2022, but his influence had already faded.
The donor class moved on.
Baker didn’t.
III. The Collapse of the Old Alliances
The Ivey Question
When Jolene Ivey suspended her County Executive campaign for health reasons, many assumed she’d endorse Baker.
She didn’t.
She didn’t hurt him.
She didn’t help him.
She simply sat still.
The old Baker–Glenn Ivey friendship?
Whatever it once was, it wasn’t enough to move Jolene.
That silence was loud.
N. B. No part of this article is sourced from Jolene. She never tells me anything.
IV. The Hypocrisy Problem
Now, in the congressional race, Baker is attacking Adrian Boafo for taking “AIPAC money.”
Let’s be clear:
- AIPAC is a political organization.
- Donors who support AIPAC are American citizens.
- They are not foreign agents.
- They are not Mossad.
- They are not “outside infiltrators.”
But Baker’s campaign uses the term as a scare word, banking on the fact that some voters will hear “AIPAC” and think “outsiders,” “shadowy,” “not from here.”
It’s the same rhetorical trick national campaigns have used for years.
And it’s the same kind of money Baker built his own career on.
The contradiction is simple:
- When Baker took out-of-county money, it was “support.”
- When Boafo takes out-of-district money, it’s “corruption.”
You can’t have it both ways.
Not honestly.
V. The Pattern Nobody Wants to Say Out Loud
Baker’s political life has a consistent structure:
1. He runs for the biggest office available.
2. He struggles to raise money.
3. He relies on outside donors to stay viable.
4. He loses when the money dries up.
5. He immediately runs for the next biggest office.
That’s not an insult.
It’s a pattern.
And now, in 2024, he’s attacking Boafo for doing the one thing Baker himself had to do to survive:
raise money wherever he could find it.
VI. The Truth, Without the Spin
Here’s the clean version:
- Baker’s early success depended heavily on Montgomery County donors.
- Those donors included major Jewish philanthropists and developers.
- Baker never objected to that support.
- He couldn’t have won without it.
- Now he’s attacking Boafo for taking support from the same category of donors.
- The rhetoric around “AIPAC money” is being used as a dog whistle.
- It’s hypocritical.
- It’s disingenuous.
- And it’s beneath the standard Baker once set for himself.
This isn’t strategy.
This isn’t ideology.
This is a candidate running out of runway and reaching for whatever weapon is left on the table.
VII. The Final Word
Baker’s problem isn’t AIPAC.
It isn’t Boafo.
It isn’t outside money.
It isn’t messaging.
It’s this:
He’s attacking others for doing exactly what he did — because he no longer has the ability to do it himself.
That’s the story.
And it’s the truth.