May 27, 2026
By Rebecca Snyder Executive Director, MDDC Press Association Governor Wes Moore’s veto of SB 459 is a disappointing and misguided decision that overlooks both the capabilities of Maryland’s local news organizations and the urgent need to strengthen the state’s local information infrastructure. The legislation was straightforward and practical: require Maryland state agencies to prioritize local news organizations (print, digital, radio and broadcast) for a portion of their advertising spending. It was revenue-neutral. It did not create a new tax, a new program, or a new bureaucracy. It simply ensured that more Maryland advertising dollars stayed in Maryland communities. Lawmakers across the political spectrum understood that value. SB 459 passed unanimously in the Senate and with overwhelming bipartisan support in the House. Legislators from both parties recognized a simple truth: local news matters. In vetoing the bill, Governor Moore expressed concerns about costs and suggested that Maryland’s local news organizations could not effectively deliver advertising to the audiences state agencies need to reach. That rationale fundamentally misunderstands today’s local media landscape. Maryland’s local news organizations include digital-first outlets, public media organizations, commercial broadcasters, radio stations, community publications, and multimedia news platforms serving audiences across every region of the state. Many operate full service advertising agencies that can place any type of advertising needed, including national platforms. 0020Collectively, they provide sophisticated advertising and communications services that rival — and often outperform — national platforms when it comes to reaching Maryland audiences. Our members regularly execute highly targeted advertising campaigns using digital audience segmentation, programmatic advertising, email marketing, video, social amplification, sponsorships, direct mail, broadcast, radio, and event-based outreach. They work with businesses, nonprofits, healthcare organizations, universities, tourism agencies, and government entities every day to connect messages with precisely the audiences they intend to reach. In fact, local media outlets often have a far deeper understanding of Maryland communities than national advertising platforms ever could. That matters because this debate is about more than advertising dollars. It is about whether Maryland will invest in the civic infrastructure that keeps communities informed and connected. Local journalism remains one of the few institutions dedicated to covering school boards, county governments, public safety, elections, housing, economic development, and the daily issues that shape residents’ lives. When local news organizations disappear, communities lose accountability, civic participation declines, and misinformation fills the vacuum. SB 459 recognized that state government advertising can serve two purposes at once: effectively communicate with Maryland residents and strengthen the trusted local institutions that help those residents stay informed. The bill also acknowledged another important reality: local media outlets are often best positioned to reach underserved communities. Community publications, local radio stations, ethnic media outlets, and regional digital publishers have built trust with audiences that are frequently overlooked by large national advertising buys. Supporting local media is not only smart economic policy; it is smart communications policy. And economically, the argument is equally compelling. Every year, Maryland spends taxpayer dollars on advertising campaigns intended to reach Maryland residents. SB 459 simply sought to ensure that more of those dollars circulate through Maryland businesses, support Maryland jobs, and strengthen Maryland-based organizations rather than flowing almost entirely to out-of-state tech platforms and national advertising networks. That is not protectionism. It is common sense. Other jurisdictions across the country have already adopted similar approaches because they recognize that government advertising dollars can help sustain local media ecosystems without expanding government spending. Maryland had the opportunity to join them with a balanced, bipartisan solution. Instead, the Governor chose to veto it. We respect Governor Moore’s commitment to innovation and economic growth. But on this issue, the administration appears to have underestimated both the sophistication and the reach of Maryland’s local media organizations. This conversation should not end with a veto. Marylanders benefit when they have access to strong local journalism. Communities benefit when trusted local outlets remain financially sustainable. And taxpayers benefit when state communications are delivered through organizations that understand Maryland audiences and communities. Support for local news should not be partisan. The General Assembly understood that. Maryland residents understand that. We hope the administration will reconsider its view of what local media can accomplish and recognize that investing in Maryland journalism is also an investment in Maryland communities.
