(Cross posted at Broadsides.org)

Oh my, it’s nice to see Vermont’s liberal elite finally catch up to the obvious conclusions reached years ago at Broadsides: Anthony Pollina is a loser. Duh. I mean, how many elections does he have to lose or otherwise foul with his disastrous decision-making before the scarlet “L” is permanently attached to his political being? Well, this is his fourth and, let’s hope, his last.

Pollina, as news reading Vermonters know by now, is in the middle of yet another one of his bizarre political tantrums, whereby he proves that the only “p” that matters to him is the “p” in “Pollina,” not principles. This time Pollina is once again shit-canning his “Mr. Campaign Finance Reform” label to – say what? – obliterate any and all of Vermont’s campaign finance laws. In other words, if he’s going to lose, he’s going to make sure all of Vermont loses, too. Oh boy, that’ll show ’em!

This latest Pollina mess was created when he made the me, myself and I-based decision to turn his back on his Progressive Party and, instead, run as an “independent” for governor. But, much like he bungled the management of his Vermont Milk Company, Pollina botched this move, too, by failing to note that the fundraising rules were a whole lot different for so-called independents. Specifically, according to the Secretary of State’s interpretation of the rules, independents can raise $1,000 per contributor/per election and major party candidates get to raise $2,000.

Pollina stepped in the campaign finance doo-doo when he began his race for governor as a major party candidate, thus begging for the $2,000 checks, but then dissed that party for a run on his own. But wait. What about the thirty-some-odd folks who ponied up more than $1,000 to his campaign? Send the money back, says the Secretary of State. No way, says Pollina. And let the mess begin.

While Pollina certainly has a legitimate grief that the law as interpreted by the state is unfair to independents, he also should have made sure he knew the rules before playing the game. But that kind of sloppiness is par for the course for Pollina’s political career (quick, name something he’s actually succeeded at…time’s up).

But there are far bigger issues here than Pollina’s latest tantrum. By declaring that the Secretary of State’s interpretation of the rules are not accurate, Pollina is saying that there are no campaign finance rules due to the fact that – buckle your seatbelts, folks – the U.S. Supreme Court threw out Vermont’s campaign finance law and Governor Jim Douglas vetoed the Vermont legislature’s attempts to remedy them.

The result? Pollina thinks anarchy should rule, as in: There are no rules. But the Secretary of State’s office thinks that the previously enacted rules should be enforced, as in: $2,000 contribution limits for major party candidates and $1,000 limits for independents.

The supreme irony in Pollina’s current self-serving position is that he’s taking one, big almighty dump on his previously proclaimed principles by now declaring that there are no rules when it comes to raising political capital. Hmm, let’s think for a second: Whom might that help most? The rich? The powerful? The well connected? Yes. Yes. And yes. But, to Pollina, there’s nothing as easily dispensable as a principle in the path of his quixotic pursuits of (said with frustration and clenched teeth): Just. Winning. One. God. Damned. Race.

So, in other words, if Pollina fails to read the rules before making a decision, to hell with the rules! Worse, if his challenge to those rules means empowering those with all the power already, so be it. Because this is about the big “P”: Pollina, and only Pollina.

Shame on him.

And shame on the Attorney General’s office, too, for repeatedly making public comments that they would need to “receive a complaint” before looking into this matter. You’d think that an official declaration by the Secretary of State’s office would trigger an investigation. Hello? Do you folks ever talk?

But, worse, while speaking with the Attorney General’s office this morning, Assistant Attorney General, Mike McShane, admitted to me that due to the “increased attention” this matter was getting that they may be looking into it “eventually” anyway. In other words, unless the press and the blogs pay enough attention to an opinion issued by the Secretary of State’s office, the Attorney General’s office will ignore it? Give me a break.

So, in order to put an end to the nonsense between these two state agencies, my partner in crime (or, in this instance, my partner in crime prevention), Boots Wardinski, submitted the letter below to the Attorney General’s office. At the time the letter was faxed, I was informed that it – the letter – would be the official “trigger” to an investigation of this matter. Pathetic? Sure. But, oddly enough, necessary as well.

The letter:

August 20, 2008

Mike McShane

Assistant Attorney General

State of Vermont

109 State Street

Montpelier,  VT 05609-1001

Dear Mr. McShane,

Please consider this letter an official citizens’ complaint regarding the political fundraising of Anthony Pollina, a publicly declared “independent” candidate for governor of Vermont.

As you know, the Secretary of State’s office has requested that the Pollina campaign return all contributions of more than $1,000 in order to comply with what it considers to be the current law. To date, the Pollina campaign is refusing to return the money.  

As concerned citizens of the State of Vermont, we offer this citizens’ complaint regarding the fundraising actions of the Pollina campaign and its apparent disregard for the law as interpreted by the Secretary of State’s office.

We look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

Michael Colby & Boots Wardinski

You guys and iBrattleboro get the longer version of this story. Hope you like it! – CA

Photo by Bart Nagel

Those were the first ten words written by Markos Moulitsas Zuniga when the Web log Daily Kos was launched in 2002. At the time the Bush Administration was hellbent on invading Iraq. Daily Kos gave people an outlet to vent their frustrations. Then the blog took on a life of its own. It became the medium through which bloggers could organize, take on “the gatekeepers,” and work for political change.

More below the fold.

In his new book, Taking on the System: Rules for Radical Change in a Digital Era, Markos documents the power of online organizing. In the tradition of Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals, Markos lays out the game plan for contemporary activists: How to connect, coordinate, and command attention; how to embrace inevitable attacks and make them work for you; and how to design powerful narratives and drive them into the the mainstream. OffTheBus caught up with “the blogfather” recently and discussed the new book.

I live in Brattleboro, Vermont and some notable activists in my community think “people don’t read blogs.” How is it changing the landscape of activism today? How does blogging translate into action and how does “Taking on the System” address that?

Taking on the System is not a book about blogging. It inevitably discusses that because it’s a tool amongst many that activists now have a say in the world around them. Whether it’s politics, culture, music, art, etc. It used to be certain elites would have a monopoly on discussing those issues. What’s happening is technology is taking a sports bar metaphor and allowing people all over the country and the world to discuss the things they care about. Once they start talking about those things, a lot of times, they will act on those issues. Particularly in politics and music. The book talks about how the technology has democraticized the ability of people to gather around the issues they care about and work for change. Blogging is a tool but so is YouTube, Facebook, MySpace, e-mail lists, etc. It’s a way to grow networks and reach out beyond your geographic space. Like if you were in Chicago, you’d basically stuck in Chicago politics, vote for president etc. Basically you’re limited to a ballot in your own precinct. Now people in Alaska can get excited about a senate race in Oklahoma and vice-versa. They can send money, do virtual phone banking, etc. There’s a lot of things they can do to work on the issues that excite them and get involved.    

These same activists in my community are very old-school. They tell me “blogging is chipping away at the power of community and activism.” Do you believe it’s replacing current means and tactics of activism, such as non-violent protests, sit-ins or direct action or is it adding to it? Is blogging (and some of the examples you put forth in “Taking on the System”) winning battles that traditional activist tactics have had problems with in the past?

Well as you read in the book, I’m a critic of traditional protests. I think an effective modern activism campaign requires a strong media component. Because if you do something and nobody hears about it, you’ve basically wasted your time. What you want to do is maximize the number of people that find out about your action and hopefully you can use that attention to bring people over to your side. So you go out in the street and you protest but nobody cares. Everybody has seen it a million times, it’s a hassle a distraction, etc. Generally speaking, they don’t work. In the book, I talk about street protests that didn’t work. It’s not that the tactic is bad, it’s the way it’s traditionally been done. “Let’s all get together and make a lot of noise! Yay! Free Mumia!” That is absolutely useless. It’s almost counterproductive. So you have to have a media strategy and blogs are a medium. It’s one way to get the message out and what I talk about in the book is you work your way up the media hierarchy. You start off with blogs and work your way up. If you are effective and your activites are compelling enough, they will jump over into traditional media outlets. You work your way up the ladder and get more people to know about your action.

One excellent example of that was Cindy Sheehan. Her protest in Crawford, TX began as a blog and e-mail list phenomenon. It worked its way up the ladder. MoveOn started promoting it. Then it jumped over to radio, television, newspapers and it became a huge national sensation. It had a huge affect on the national sentiment on the war in Iraq. Then it started disintegrating because at that point, she was marching traditional protests, demanding attention, visiting Hugo Chavez, it all fell apart at that point. But that initial strategy was very much effective. I don’t think he would have gotten as far without the blogging component.  Blogging is just a tool in the toolbox but it’s clearly a citizen powered media and it’s an essential component to any kind of modern activism. I don’t think the Obama campaign would even exist if it weren’t people powered media.

It seems that the Internet is still in “the silent film” stage in terms of its potential to change society. Where will blogging and political change lead us in to the future?

Ideally, in the perfect world, it would lead us to a more responsive governance. It used to be that the ruling elite, the president, Congress, Washington Post, NYT, and WSJ columnists, etc. If you weren’t a part of the media elite, you were pretty much out of luck. We’ve seen time and time again how columnists love to speak about the heartland and the average Americans, these are millionaires who have lived in Washington for decades and have no clue what people are up to. So we have a medium that empowers people everywhere and they can say what they care about and it’s a lot harder for those elites to speak for everybody else. We’re bypassing those elite media filters and political filters and given that ability, we have a more responsive government to the people not to the gatekeeper elites.

In Feeding the Backlash you talk about Kerry ignoring Swift Boat attacks in the 2004 election. In the book you write the following: “In the heat of the moment you differentiate between credible and effective threats and those that won’t make a ripple in the media landscape.” How do you navigate around which attacks to respond to and which ones not to respond to?

It’s hard. It’s one of those things in hindsight, it might seem very obvious and clear. But in the moment it doesn’t. I also say there are some attacks that help. There’s nothing better for Keith Olbermann’s ratings than Bill O’Reilly having one of his temper tantrums. That stuff is gold. Sometimes being attacked is good and you want to encourage more of that. People will think he/she must be important otherwise why else would O’Reilly attack him? What we’re realizing now is once upon a time it would have been a lot harder for somebody like James Corsi to get the word out. One of the huge components of the Swiftboat ads was online and blogging-based. They spent very little money on these ads and it was pretty much was the biggest factor in John Kerry’s defeat.

I appreciated your chapter “Fight big, win small.” You seem to argue that activists don’t win by going after the whole pie at once. You chip away at it one piece at a time. This is why the GOP has been so successful. Do most progressives not get this?

It’s clearly one of the cruxes of the progressive movement. I think part of it has to do with being a movement that’s very fragmented among various groups. Each of them thinking their issues is the most important and the whole world rest on that issue. They’re constantly in competition against each other. You don’t get that sense among on the right among anti-tax groups, gun groups, and family values folks. They work together with each other, they’re patient and they realize it’s a longterm struggle and they won’t win things overnight. You definitely don’t get that on the left. Everybody seems to think if their issue is not the number one issue on the agenda, then you’re not a real progressive. It’s ugly. But it’s another reason why the right has been successful. It’s very methodical.  It’s their ability to subsume the movement into a common whole that’ made them very powerful. I write about unions and how they once took that approach. Now it’s different. Hopefully it will change. We are a much broader coalition then they are. They’re basically a white, male southern party. It’s a lot easier to keep people in line if that’s your base. With the left, it’s basically everybody else at this point.

This is off tangent but there was a prominent activist from Brattleboro named Marty Jezer whom I admired. He once said “the difference between the way the right and left organize is the right organizes for electoral power – even between elections – whereas the left organizes for self-expression. They right seems to focus on the goal of power whereas the left encourages everyone to do what each individual wants.” Obviously you see that today in so many different ways.

Yeah. I think the smart activists, the ones who are more effective at affecting change relaize there are certain power areas and that’s what you need to influence. You can be as loud and obnoxious as you want but if you’re not reaching the certain crowd (in power) you’re not doing ay good. In the book I talk about the pressure points. You have two pressure points as an activist. You can influence decision makers or you can influence the public. You can’t pick one or the other.  

Who will show this Thursday at Burlington DFA’s “Meet the Candidates” event?

Symington? Confirmed.

Pollina? Maybe. Douglas? Probably not.

You? We sure hope so.

RSVP online now!

Burlington DFA invites you to join us this Thursday, August 21, at our “Meet the Candidates” community forum. More than a dozen candidates from around the Burlington area are confirmed to attend, including gubernatorial candidate Gaye Symington. The event is free and open to the public (suggested donation $5 – $20), a great opportunity for Burlingtonians to meet the people who are running to represent them in county, legislative, and statewide office.

The event will be a casual mix-and-mingle where local candidates for office will get the chance to meet their prospective constituents face-to-face and talk about the issues important to them. If you have a question you want answered or a candidate you’d like to meet, this is the event for you!

When:

August 21, 7 – 9 p.m.

Where:

Main Street Landing Performing Arts Center, Atrium (Third Floor)

60 Lake Street

Burlington, VT 05401

(On the corner of Lake and College Streets, in the same building as the Skinny Pancake.)

What:

Meet and greet with Burlingtonians and candidates for office.

Confirmed Candidates Include:

House Speaker Gaye Symington, Gubernatorial candidate

Nate Freeman, Lieutenant Gubernatorial candidate

Sen. Hinda Miller, Chittenden County

Sen. Ginny Lyons, Chittenden County

City Councilor Tim Ashe, Candidate for Chittenden County Senate

Rep. Rachel Weston, Chittenden 3-3

Rep. Christopher Pearson, Chittenden 3-4

Rep. David Zuckerman, Chittenden 3-4

Rep. Johannah Leddy Donovan, Chittenden 3-5

Rep. Bill Keogh, Chittenden 3-5

Joanna Cole, candidate for Chittenden 3-1

Kesha Ram, candidate for Chittenden 3-4

Suzi Wizowaty, candidate for Chittenden 3-5

RSVP online or contact Sara at smpuls@gmail.com.

Join Burlington DFA online at
www.democracyforamerica.com/burlington.

We hope to see you there!

Sara Puls

Burlington DFA organizer

Surprise! Pollina is keeping the money after all! After being told his peculiar abandonment of the Progressive Party ballot line in favor of electoral “independence” created the necessity of his returning $27,000 in campaign contributions that he doesn’t have – Mr. Campaign Finance Reform has (predictably) once again said “Limits? We don’t need no steenkin’ limits…”. Well, at least not if they turn out to be inconvenient.

Whatever else this may be, it’s also ridiculous. Is he gonna take on the campaign finance regime every time he runs for office now? Good grief.

What complicates this issue is if you have been (as I have) convinced by the knowledgeable and thoughtful arguments of GMD’s Caoimhin Laochdha who layed out the case only three days ago (coincidence?) that our current campaign finance “law” is a mirage. That, if you scratch beneath the surface even the tiniest bit, and look past the consensus veneer originating from the Attorney General’s office, it turns out we have no contribution limit on the books at all, and Pollina is, in fact, free to do as he chooses – even if what he chooses in this case is political suicide for both this election, and any future electoral ambitions.

Of course, the Argus/Herald article is waxing incredulous, following Secretary of State Deb Markowitz’s head scratching over this violation of “the letter of the law,” and the article offers no counter-argument from the Pollina campaign, just some mumbling about the law being “unfair” which amounts to whining – and again, the same flavor of whining that characterized his unsuccessful challenge to the campaign finance laws in ’02. Just another reminder to Dems who might be deluding themselves otherwise, that things have not changed with this guy. (Although rather than simply scratch their heads thoughtfully regarding what Pollina could possibly be thinking, you’d think Porter & Barlow might’ve taken the arguments from Caoimhin a little more seriously. C’mon guys – we’re into our third year at GMD… how many more times are we gonna have to prove we know what we’re talking about here, even if (especially if) it hasn’t (yet) been acknowledged by the powers-that-be? Ah well, we can wait a few more years. Heh.)

But as CL said, Pollina really isn’t breaking a law this time, much to Markowitz’s insistence otherwise. What he is breaking is an unspoken pact, a norm if you will, in the universe of rules norms and laws. A norm he followed when it suited him (as he was staying under the $2,000 limit when he thought he was a Progressive), and that he’s now throwing out when it doesn’t.

And like the 2002 issue, its not just about him. His response is to take the system head on and, if successful, bring it down as a result. Where he wasn’t successful against the law in ’02, he likely will be successful against the norm in ’08. In the process, he’ll only shore up the traditional narratives on the two left wing parties (even though Pollina is no longer “technically” a member of one); the Democrats are somewhat feckless, but mean well. The Progressives are stronger and clearer on issues, but are unrestrained in their ambition – even to the detriment of those issues.

But the real winner of course? Once again, Pollina is playing patsy to Jim Douglas. There’s a good chance Douglas was already planning a last minute trouncing of this non-law norm that is our campaign finance…er… code(?). Now there’s no question. For $27,000, Pollina has run interference for him in the public arena, and is holding open what could easily be a $270,000 golden door for our Republican Governor this election. As Caoimhin so aptly said in his diary below, when Pollina “pulls his finger out of the money dike, where do you think the river of big money contributions will flow?”

UPDATE: Philip chimes in in his usual entertaining style:

…the Secretary of State has told (Pollina), in no uncertain terms, that (keeping the $27,000) violates the letter of the law. …you cannot survive a public knife fight with Deb Markowitz. Not where the particulars of election law are concerned.

Cool. If this is the case, Markowitz should be able to answer a simple question: which law?

• Carpetbagger-bagger: Vermont uberblogger Steve Benen of Carpetbagger Report (and Salon, Crooks & Liars, Talking Points Memo, etc. etc…) is bagging the Report to move further up the media foodchain (seriously, he was already near the top):
  

  Starting this Friday, Aug. 22, Kevin will be leaving the Washington Monthly, heading over to a new blog at Mother Jones. He’ll be replaced at Political Animal by … me.

  Yes, five-and-a-half years and more than 16,000 posts later, I’m giving up The Carpetbagger Report to blog exclusively for the Washington Monthly. I couldn’t be more excited about the opportunity.

  Cool! Hey Steve, If I give you fifty bucks, can you sneak us on the blogroll?

• A Wash? Lt. Governor candidate Tom Costello links from his website to Jack’s diary on the presentations from him and primary rival Nate Freeman to the state committee. Jack reports some good stuff from Costello and speaks highly of him – but those who click on the link entitled “How Tom Stopped Enron in Vermont” will find that the actual name of Jack’s diary is “Freeman Calls For Energy Department”. I can’t decide whether that’s a net promotional gain, or if its just a wash…
• Speaking of Lt. Governor candidates… Liberty Union Candidate Ben Mitchell says in his spiel:
  

  If I am elected Lieutenant Governor and the Governor leaves the state for even ten minutes, I will pardon all nonviolent drug offenders serving time in Vermont or Kentucky prisons.

  Ok, that is a tempting pitch… if only it were that easy.

UPDATE I was going to write a diary on this but thought that I’d add it in the open thread- CA

Tune In, Log On, Drop By: Online Communities on VPT: Chris Grotke at iBrattleboro had this announcement today.

“This Thursday at 8 pm, Vermont Public Television will be broadcasting highlights from the Snelling Center’s E-State Conference held earlier this year at Champlain College in Burlington.

To help extend the conversation beyond the one-way screen, they are offering viewers a chance to chat online during the show about building online communities. VPT asked iBrattleboro to help lead the discussion. We’ll be joining Kurt Gruendling from Champlain Valley Telecom and Don Mayer of Small Dog Electronics to field your questions and concerns as best we can.

VPT will be doing the moderation and chat, so if you have any difficulty, contact them for assistance.

Otherwise, tune in, log on, and drop by to take part in the (slow) shaping of Vermont’s connected future. We’ll see you in the chat room.

To read the press release click here. Cool!