BALTIMORE — In the lead-up to last month’s Democratic primary in Maryland’s 41st District, campaign mailers from outgoing state Sen. Dalya Attar featured a photograph of her with Gov. Wes Moore alongside text highlighting Moore’s appointment of her to the vacant Senate seat. However, the mailers did not disclose that Moore had endorsed Attar’s opponent, Del. Malcolm Ruff, who received a $6,000 campaign contribution from the governor and campaigned with him after Attar’s appointment.

Ruff criticized the mailers, suggesting they were crafted to imply that Attar maintained Moore’s backing despite his endorsement of Ruff. “People don’t necessarily pay close attention. They look at the pictures and don’t really scrutinize it,” Ruff said, asserting that such tactics aim to influence voters through visual cues rather than clear statements.

Attempts to reach Attar for comment were unsuccessful.

Instances of potentially misleading campaign materials have surfaced across Maryland during the primary season. Election law experts note that while these tactics may raise ethical questions, they generally fall within the protections of free speech under the First Amendment. Donald Tobin, a law professor at the University of Maryland’s Carey School of Law, highlighted recent Supreme Court rulings that have safeguarded deceptive political speech from legal penalties unless a defamation claim—which is difficult to prove—is established.

“The core concern is who gets to determine what is, in fact, the truth,” Tobin said, referencing judicial reluctance to regulate false statements in political discourse.

The current campaign mailers exemplify a broader trend in political advertising, where candidates present truthful information combined with design choices and images that can create misleading impressions without expressly stating falsehoods. Campaign strategists acknowledge the ethical complexity, noting many voters may accept these impressions without further investigation.

A similar case occurred in Montgomery County in June, when State Sen. Will Smith and colleagues distributed mailers styled like official Democratic sample ballots that the Maryland Democratic Party had not authorized. Smith did not respond to requests for comment.

Election lawyer Robbie Leonard said that as long as a campaign’s statements remain accurate, legal disputes are unlikely. “If she doesn’t say Wes Moore endorsed me and says Wes Moore appointed me to fill the Senate vacancy, that’s totally legitimate,” Leonard explained. “If the recipient assumes Wes Moore endorsed her, that’s not her fault.”

Campaign consultants observe that such mailers are often deployed close to election day to leverage the limited time voters have to evaluate claims. Joe Francaviglia, a former Maryland Democratic Party leader, noted the strategy’s potential for short-term gain but warned of possible backlash if voters perceive manipulation.

Voters, Leonard said, bear responsibility for verifying campaign information by consulting resources such as candidate questionnaires from the League of Women Voters or reviewing officials’ voting records.

Ruff urged caution, emphasizing candidates’ willingness to employ aggressive tactics in pursuit of victory: “They’ll do anything necessary, even if it ain’t ethical.”