(Cross posted at Broadsides.org)

Yikes. Given the recent financial disclosure submitted by one-time Democrat, one-time Rainbow Party, two-and-a-half-time Progressive Party and now half-time Independent candidate, Anthony Pollina, we now know why he put his silly little credit card idea so front and center in his campaign for governor: The poor lad is out of cash. Yo Tony, credit or debit?

Yesterday marked the financial disclosure-filing deadline for any statewide candidate who has spent or raised more than $500. And the paperwork submitted by the mainstream media’s top three gubernatorial candidates – Pollina, Gaye Symington and Jim Douglas – looked remarkably like the candidates themselves. Pollina’s was pathetic (only $20,000 left), Symington’s was bland, and Douglas’ was what one would expect from a spoiled incumbent Republican (loaded).

Other than the fact that it looks like another cakewalk for an incumbent in this election, the news from the filings should focus on what losers the left is putting up against Douglas – especially in a year in which St. Obama is expected to mop up in Vermont. Pollina, for example, was a distant third in the race for the cash, despite the fact that he was the first to announce his candidacy, didn’t have a job to distract him from his run, and had made the claim last January that he had raised more than $100,000 at that point. If we take his $100,000 claim to be true, that means Pollina only raised about $60,000 in the seven months since then. Ouch. So he either lied back then or he’s been pathetic since then – choose one.

Now that he’s losing the campaign cash war, Pollina will soon be playing the campaign finance reform card. And while I’m all in favor of reining in the money chase, I think it’s more than ironic that it was Pollina who was (falsely?) thumping his campaign war chest last December while trying to scare away any Democratic Party challenger. Way back then, amassing and trumpeting great campaign wealth was essential for Pollina. But now that he’s getting his financial clock cleaned by both of his main opponents, money is bad, bad, bad for politics. In Pollina’s Hypocrisy We Trust.

My guess is that Pollina will seek to stop the bleeding to his already seriously damaged political reputation and drop out of this race before he has to officially file as an Independent in September. Between now and then the writing will be on the wall: The money will be drying up, the polls will be dismal, and he’ll get all kinds of pressure from the liberal elite to bag it or never come calling again. From my perspective, his new and phony “Independent” label was his first step out of the race. And it will make his last step – an endorsement of Symington – much easier in September. Remember, Pollina is pals with – and a financial grantee of – Symington’s husband, Chuck Lacy. We shall see.

—

Speaking of Pollina, congrats to Shay Totten of Seven Days for being the first Vermont journalist to jump into the smarmy waters of Pollina’s Vermont Milk Company. Via Blurt, Totten reported on the latest round of layoffs at the company and the dairy company’s continued financial strain. Totten also made note of the fact that Pollina changed his official campaign biography with regard to his relationship to the company after news of its failure to pay farmers came to light. Pollina’s original bio declared that he “ran the company.” But after the financial shit hit the fan, Pollina changed his bio to read that he was merely on the board of the company. Nice.

Louis Porter of the Vermont Press Bureau tried to follow Totten’s lead with his own version of the story in the Times Argus/Rutland Herald. But Porter – not surprisingly – took the tepid route and ignored Pollina’s biography fudging and, instead, let Pollina’s mismanagement be explained away by the tough financial times for everyone. Well, that ignores the fact that there are many food/ag entrepreneurs in the Vermont Milk Company’s Hardwick region who are flourishing (and growing) in these tough economic times. Look, for example, at Vermont Soy, Jasper Hill, High Mowing Seeds and the Food Venture Center – they’re all booming.

Sorry, but the problem with the Vermont Milk Company was that it had a dinosaur-like business plan being “run” by a political debutante with no business experience. Remember, it shunned organic in a time when organic is king in the marketplace. And its first big product was an overly plasticized “single-serving” shot of a – say what? – creamie. Yes, I just wrote about the Vermont Milk Company in the past tense. Because, it’s over up there. The only thing keeping the doors open for now are the secret Pollina contributors who were rushed in to keep it open until after the election.

Let’s hope one of those more competent and visionary Hardwick-area foodies can at least take over the facility once the Vermont Milk Company officially becomes another casualty of the Pollina touch.

(Ed with his usual insights! Thanks Ed! – promoted by Christian Avard)

does it take to screw (Vermonters) in a lightbulb?

At least 13:

http://www.tradingmarkets.com/…

EN-Vermont Yankee (1) is currently a direct wholly owned subsidiary of Entergy Nuclear Vermont Investment Company, LLC (2) which, in turn, is a direct wholly owned subsidiary of Entergy Nuclear Holding Company #3 (3), LLC. Entergy Nuclear Holding Company #3, LLC is a direct wholly owned subsidiary of Entergy Nuclear Holding Company (4) which, in turn, is a direct wholly owned subsidiary of Entergy Corporation (5). Therefore, under the current corporate structure, Entergy Corporation is the indirect owner of 100 percent of EN-Vermont Yankee.

Under the proposed corporate restructuring, a new holding company, Enexus Energy Corporation (Enexus) (6), will be created. Initially, the shareholders of Entergy Corporation will separately own the shares of Enexus and, as such, Enexus will be owned by the public. Entergy Nuclear Holding Company will become a direct wholly owned subsidiary of Enexus. Accordingly, following the corporate restructuring, Enexus will acquire indirect control of 100 percent of EN-Vermont Yankee.

ENO (7), the operator of the Vermont Yankee facility, is currently a direct wholly owned subsidiary of Entergy Nuclear Holding Company #2 (8) which, in turn, is a direct wholly owned subsidiary of Entergy Corporation. Therefore, Entergy Corporation is currently the indirect owner of 100 percent of ENO.

Under the proposed corporate restructuring, Entergy Nuclear Holding Company #2 will be eliminated and ENO will become a direct subsidiary of a new parent company called EquaGen, LLC (9). EquaGen, LLC will be owned in equal shares by two new intermediate holding companies as follows. Entergy EquaGen, Inc. (10) is being created as a direct subsidiary of Entergy Corporation and will own 50 percent of EquaGen, LLC. Similarly, Enexus EquaGen, LLC (11) is being created as a direct subsidiary of Enexus and will also own 50 percent of EquaGen, LLC. Accordingly, following the corporate restructuring, Entergy Corporation and Enexus will each have indirect control of 50 percent of ENO.

Finally, ENO will be converted from a corporation to a limited liability company and its name will be changed from Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. to EquaGen Nuclear, LLC (12). Under Delaware law, EquaGen Nuclear, LLC will assume all of the rights and responsibilities of ENO, and it will be the same company (legal entity) both before and after the conversion and name change. Also, EN- Vermont Yankee will undergo a name change to become Enexus Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC (13). The staff understands that ENO will request an administrative license amendment to conform the Vermont Yankee license in the near future.

crossposted at ibrattleboro.com

Raw Story is reporting that former first lady Hillary Clinton will ask that she not be nominated for Veep at the Democratic National Convention this month. According to the New York Daily News

A source close to the New York senator confirmed she won’t file a formal request to the convention asking to be nominated along with Barack Obama, who eked out the victory in their fierce primary slugfest.

“She is not going to submit the signed request,” the insider told the Daily News. “People are still circulating petitions on her behalf, but this is a done deal.”

Party rules stipulate that Clinton must ask in writing to be nominated herself and also submit a petition signed by 300 to 600 delegates. Without her signed request, petitions of support are meaningless

Well OK then. I guess this isn’t a surprise to some of us. Still, PU advocates like Armando Llorens (aka Big Tent Democrat of Talk Left and MyDD) will be pissed!

To read more click here.

(UPDATE/ADUSTMENT: It looks like Douglas and Symington did not reflect in-kind contributions on both the contribution and expense form while Pollina did, which means their cash on hand totals are a bit inflated, figured as they are by both me and the media as a simple function of cash-to-date minus expenditures. This doesn’t amount to anything for Symington who only reported about $200 in in-kinds, but Douglas reported more like $12,000. The adjustments are reflected below)

There’s an awful lot to look at here, so I’ll be doing some research in my (ha!) spare time over the next few days, as well as counting on hearing from some of you election geeks out there who catch things that I don’t. Here are the basic numbers:

• Douglas: $737,596.65 raised, $387,764.13 spent for $349,832.52 $338,850.52 (see update note above) handy (includes a $55,853.93 ’06 rollover)
• Symington: $205,309.90 raised, $70,914.93 spent for $134,294.97 $134,189.57 (see update note above) handy
• Pollina: $166,200.74 raised, $143,321.21 spent for $31,905.77 (woops) $22,879.53 handy

Some basic analysis below the fold.

Let’s start with Pollina. If we are to believe the line from January – that they’d already raised $100,000 – that means in the intervening months he’s only raised $66k. Of course, I have no doubt that they were exaggerating at the time, but still, the reality is a bit bleak. Fundraising is way down, and most of its already spent. Clearly this is yet another sign that the independent move was an crisis-driven attempt to redefine, and reinvigorate what looks to be a very troubled campaign.

Let’s talk Symington. No bones about it, Douglas is kicking her ass financially, which is no surprise. Before today, I told myself she absolutely had to show from $200k to $400k, and she’s eked in at the low end of that, so its hard to feel thrilled about it. It’s at roughly two-thirds of what Scudder Parker had at this time two years ago, but on the upside, she has about $30,000 more on hand than Parker did at this point.

And yeah, its notable that she’s raised this money very quickly. Parker had been working for the better part of a year by now, and Symington has only been in the game for a measly couple months. Nevertheless, Election Day waits for no one, and to all those Symington supporters who were mocking  all of us who were so annoyed at how damn long it was taking for someone to finally decide to get around to running a campaign, allow me to say with no humility whatsoever, that this is what we were freaking talking about!!!!

Still, one of the things that’s striking in the Symington report is how many of the usual suspect Dem-moneybag contributors have come nowhere near maxing out to her campaign. One wonders where they are as – like the acronym sez – early money is like yeast, but it does mean that she should be able to raise quite a bit more from this same pool over the next month.

But Douglas too, has quite a pool, in terms of simple quantity. He boasts a better than 3-to-1 advantage in people who have given $100 or more to his campaign. Yes, he’s an incumbent with big lists, but Symington clearly needs to do more to convince the large numbers of Dems in the state that she has a shot if they open up the checkbooks. Her reasonable financial showing, contrasted against Pollina’s malaise may help her to do that.

(And as a side note to all the internet mutterers, yes her husband did give to Anthony Pollina at the beginning of the year, but yes he has since given to his wife, and given more to boot)

…and then there’s the Governor. Big, big bucks, and a huge report to sift through. It’ll take me some time, as there’s quite a bit of giving from corporate sources (everywhere from obvious ones like WalMart and Anheiser Busch, to the more cryptic) that it may take me some time to identify.

Predictably, Douglas gets a lot of money from some of the wealthier businesspeople in the state and tons from development interests. Hardly a shocker. Big state contractors, such as EDS and Clough, Harbour & Associates also pony up. FairPont Communications throws in a token trickle, but I guess they’re kinda strapped these days.

The thing to notice about Douglas at this level, though, is just how much he’s spending. Despite his 3-and-a-half-to-1 fundraising advantage over Symington, he only has a 2-and-a-half-to-1 advantage in cash on hand. A lot of that money we’ll see soon enough; there are a lot of expenditures for ad development, and he’s already making ad buys, of course. But there’s a lot of money to consultants, and a buttload on polling. Traditionally, Dems have always spent money more carefully and efficiently in these things (they’ve had to), so hopefully that will create some equalizing effect as well. Symington has only just started polling, based on her info.

(And speaking of polling – there’s no sign of “Pacific Crest Research” – the folks who were doing the Brooke Bennett-based push poll on Douglas’s behalf across the state – on either Douglas’s or the state GOP’s report. A bit of sleuthing is definitely in order…)

One thing I will say, though, if you’re looking for Entergy money, it looks like you won’t find it on Douglas’s report. He’s too smart for that. Instead, you’ll have to check out the Vermont GOP report for a $2000 contribution (the max) from their ENPAC arm (you didn’t really think that they wouldn’t be pitching in somewhere, didja?).

More on the Party reports tomorrow evening…. or maybe Saturday. While shorter, the Party reports are a bit deceptive, in terms of how the whole financial horse race thing plays out. More on that soon…

Also, (and this replaces some questions I wrote and then removed in my first stab at this diary when my head was much fuzzier from being up too late), there are reporting differences. Pollina reports in-kind contributions on the expense and contribution sides, the other two seem not to. Not sure what standard practice is or should be, and the Secretary of State’s office gives little guidance on how to fill these things out, so you have to make some inferences one way or the other. I will say, Pollina makes it much easier to track in kind contributions on his form, compared to the other two.

More to come.

Just a snapshot of this stuff now, as I have stacks to look at. That’s why I’ll start with the Lite Guv numbers because a snapshot is all there is…

• Dubie: $62,445 raised, $20,523.77 spent for $41,921.23 on hand (includes $21,138 rolled over from ’06)
• Freeman: $1,090.17 raised, $120.94 spent for $969.23 on hand
• Costello: $10,615 raised, $479.04 spent for $10,135.96 on hand

Dubie can phone it in at this point. He’s got a list, a network, people will give and he doesn’t have to break a sweat.

On the Dem side, while Costello has raised quite a bit more than Freeman, its just a handful of big contributions largely from extended family. The actual fundraising doesn’t seem to have begun. Freeman, on the other hand, shows just four contributions over $100, although interestingly for a supposedly “outsider” candidate, two of them come from sitting legislators: $350 from Rep. Maxine Grad and $200 from Sen. Hinda Miller.

Frankly, both Freeman and Costello are at financing levels too low to be taken seriously by Dubie at this point. While its true that the eventual primary winner will quickly be able to capitalize and  bump up their numbers, both need to get moving now if they’re serious.