I saw this over at HuffPo today. Obama's not looking so good, perhaps he should rest up before the convention.

(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!

( – promoted by odum)

Today I heard a report about the number of Iraq War refugees that Sweden has accepted compared to the number that the US is allowing in. Recently the US is increasing the number allowed in but it is a slow process. Sweden, for example, has granted asylum to about 40,000 since 2003.According to a US citizenship and immigration services (USCIS) fact sheet revised on July 15, however, the US has admitted only 6,609 Iraqis this fiscal year through July 2.

I then stumbled across Vermont mentioned in an investing article about EB-5 visas. I suppose it’s just a great way to get that missing capital for your development project and isn’t directly related to the Iraqi immigration issue but it is a striking comparison in priorities.

Under the program, known as EB-5, a foreigner receives a green card for investing $500,000 in a business in a rural or high-unemployment area. EB-5 investors have to show that the money they are using was earned legally. In exchange for a $1 million business investment that creates at least 10 jobs for at least two years, the immigrant gets permanent residency in the U.S., or what’s known as a “green card.”

Though the EB-5 visa program has been criticized for favoring the wealthy, proponents say it attracts foreign investment and streamlines the process for investors who otherwise may park their money elsewhere.

Of the 31 investment zones approved under the program nationwide, 12 are active. Other approved investments include resorts in Vermont, an office building in New Orleans and dairy farms in South Dakota.

In 2007, such zones drew an estimated $500 million in investments, and that’s projected to double to $1 billion this year, according to the immigration services.

Only 806 gained permanent residency through the program in 2007.

One immigrant investor, who is 48 and semi-retired from the airplane leasing business, said he wrote his check last April and received his temporary green card six months later. He said that accounting and legal fees added about 10 percent to his $500,000 investment. He said he expects to receive a permanent green card in 2009.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comm…

http://travel.nytimes.com/2008…

http://www.eb5greencard.com/fa…

http://www.chron.com/disp/stor…

Update

The number of EB-5 visas issued this year is expected to be higher, as investors act before the scheduled Sept. 30 sunset of the legislative authorization for the program. An extension has been approved in the House and is awaiting action in the Senate after it returns from recess on Sept. 5,

http://tampabay.bizjournals.co…

I remain convinced that most of the anti-choice (I refuse to call them “pro-life”) fanatics don't know anyone who has had an abortion. Still, for a group dedicated to the oppression of half of the population, they have had incredible success.

One recent victory is Gonzales v. Carhart, the Supreme Court's decision last year upholding a ban on so-called partial birth abortion. One of the points Kennedy makes in his opinion is that:

While we find no reliable data to measure the phenomenon, it seems unexceptionable to conclude some women come to regret their choice to abort the infant life they once created and sustained. See Brief for Sandra Cano et al. as Amici Curiae in No. 05-380, pp. 22-24. Severe depression and loss of esteem can follow. See ibid.

If you unpack these sentences, what they say is that there is no evidence for what we're about to say, but it could be true that “some” –how many? don't bother asking–women have some regret; depression and loss of esteem “can” follow–we can't say for sure that they do follow, but it's possible. Thus, they couch their opposition to women's autonomy in a pretended concern for women's best interests. It's almost hard to believe that someone with training in close, logical reasoning could make such statements.

This week the American Psychological Association released a new study, finding that there is no scientific evidence to support this theory.

BOSTON—There is no credible evidence that a single elective abortion of an unwanted pregnancy in and of itself causes mental health problems for adult women, according to a draft report released Tuesday by a task force of the American Psychological Association.

The APA Task Force on Mental Health and Abortion reached its conclusions after evaluating all of the empirical studies published in English in peer-reviewed journals since 1989 that compared the mental health of women who had an induced abortion to comparison groups of women, or that examined factors that predict mental health among women who have had an elective abortion in the United States. The task force, formed in 2006, was charged with collecting, examining and summarizing the scientific research addressing mental health factors associated with abortion, including the psychological responses following abortion.

 “The best scientific evidence published indicates that among adult women who have an unplanned pregnancy, the relative risk of mental health problems is no greater if they have a single elective first-trimester abortion or deliver that pregnancy,” said Brenda Major, PhD, chair of the task force. “The evidence regarding the relative mental health risks associated with multiple abortions is more uncertain.”

To me, this is welcome news. Obviously, there is a vast category of people to whom the facts don't matter. Still, every chance we can get to demonstrate that there is no factual basis for their claims is important: it exposes the roots of their positions for the superstition and bigotry that they are. 

(This is a lot more important than my hummingbird photos. – promoted by JulieWaters)

Overheard in Montpelier — Jim Douglas to Anthony Pollina:  “Tony, here's $28,000, don't spend it all in one Party.”

Anthony Pollina's campaign is not handling his departure from the Vermont Progressive Party with the aplomb expected of a politician who has run in three statewide elections since 1984.  The current campaign finance flap was a foreseeable distraction, but he apparently had no pre-determined solution nor did he take proactive steps to stave off the problem before allowing a confusing political/financial/legal narrative to take hold.

The most important aspect of this story is also the most overlooked. No one seems to be discussing the fact that:

1. Mr. Pollina has broken no campaign finance law.

2. Mr. Pollina is under no legal obligation to return the notorious and controversial $28K.

3. Mr. Pollina may legally continue to collect contributions as an Independent in the same manner that he would have done as a Progressive.

Pretty crazy considering both his response to this affair and the press he has received as result.

My opinion (glad you asked)  Mr. Pollina owes Governor Douglas a big fat sloppy wet kiss because, thanks to the Governor, Pollina is not legally obligated to return a single penny. In fact, Vermont law does nothing to prevent him from going back to his contributors (caveat, good luck trying!) for more $$ — all thanks to Governor Douglas.

The fun stuff, below:

Anthony Pollina will be under extreme political pressure to return single source contributions in excess of $1,000. 

There has been an agreement among politicians to accept an informal campaign contribution ceasefire ceiling.  Face it; many of Vermont's large contributors have wholeheartedly endorsed this as well.  He will look really unsavory if he is the first person to exceed the politically and socially acceptable $1,000 limits just because (1) he can and (2) he forgot to consider the problem in the first place: oops!

Still the point is one of image not law. While burdened with a political and public relations obligation, Mr. Pollina does not face any legal obligation to return “excess” campaign contributions.  The State cannot prosecute Mr. Pollina nor can it hold him liable, fine him or otherwise put him in legal jeopardy since Vermont does not have a law on the books for him to violate.  The current “limits” folks are discussing are legally non-existent.  They are voluntary.  They reflect a mutual non-aggression pact to continue using the pre-Randall v. William Sorrell single source contribution limits.

Pretty neat trick, uh? 

This is how it works.  In April 2008, as the legislature was winding down the session, Governor James “Watch.Me.Starve.The.State-but-Piggy.Stuff.the.Snot.Out.of.My.Campaign.Account” Douglas vetoed the one piece of legislation that would have placed limits on contributions to gubernatorial campaigns.

This spring, our General Assembly passed S. 278. Senate Bill 278 fixed the problem created by the Randall v. Sorrell decision and replaced the campaign contribution limits the legislature had repealed in Act 64.

S.278 set a generally acceptable limit on campaign contributions and was the product of intense negotiation, compromise and acceptance by political parties, legislators and public interest groups. Among other things, it would have instituted a contribution limit of $1,000 per election cycle.  The exact language in S.278 that Governor Douglas vetoed read:

A candidate for the office of governor, lieutenant governor, secretary of state, state treasurer, auditor of accounts, or attorney general shall not accept contributions totaling more than $1,000.00 from a single source or political committee for any election.

By vetoing the legislation, however, Governor Douglas prevented any statutory limit on campaign contributions to gubernatorial (or any) candidates. The legal ceiling on campaign contributions to gubernatorial candidates — rather than being statutorily capped at $1,000.00 — remains well in excess of this.  In fact, there is no limit. Governor Douglas can harvest contributions far in excess of the $1K & $2K individual offerings he already has sloshing around in his campaign slop bucket.

Governor Douglas's veto has forced the most wide-open campaign contribution (non)limits in the country and with hardly a peep out of anyone. Come late August, September or October, he can call on his donor base for unlimited funds to cluster bomb Vermont airwaves with standard issue GOP dissembled cookie-cutter media fear & slime, and there is no legal recourse against him doing it either.

The Process, How We Came to this Point: 

Prior to 1998, Vermont law mandated “No candidate shall accept contributions totaling more than $1,000 from a single source.” 3 V.S.A. §2805 (pre-1988 language)

In 1997, our General Assembly repealed the $1,000 campaign contribution limit. In its place the legislature adopted a new law mandating a $400 single source contribution limit. This is the key to the whole mess. The legislature passed and the Governor signed legislation REPEALING the $1,000 contribution limit that Mr. Pollina is being pilloried for “violating.” The replacement statute became effective in November 1998 after that year's election. 

Since passage of Act 64, there is not $1,000.00 contribution limit under Vermont law.  The $400 limit “on the books” (as they say), was tossed by the Supreme Court as part of an overall unconstitutional campaign finance scheme. To this day, if one looks-up the statutory contribution limits in Title 17, the only language “on the books” states:  A candidate for the office of governor, lieutenant governor, secretary of state, state treasurer, auditor of accounts, or attorney general shall not accept contributions totaling more than $400.00 from a single source, political committee or political party in any two-year general election cycle. Oops! That's not very helpful now is it?  Oh well, the rest, as they say, is history.

The unrepaired language residing in Vermont's campaign finance statutes are a meaningless relic waiting for a legislative update without a gubentorial veto. So what is the contribution limit to a gubernatorial campaign?  The simple, and legally correct answer, is that there is no limit.

So WHERE DOES one find the so-called $1,000 single source contirbution limit that Mr. Pollina allegedly violated? The short answer is nowhere, but there is still more to the story than that.

Faced with this problem – i.e. no contribution limits – and after being shot down in Randell v. William Sorrel et al. (which, BTW, cost Vermont taxpayers a few $million in legal fees that the courts required State to reimburse the plainfiffs for violating their free speech rights), the Attorney General decided to implement a new limit on campaign contributions. With a straight face, he declared that Vermont's contribution law “reverts” to the old repealed law when the Court stikes down the law currently residing in the Vermont Code.

“Uhh” you may be asking?

This “reversion” concept, while not recognized in law, or fact, nor in any way enforceable, and without any historic precedent, has nonetheless been the basis of the informal campaign finance cease-fire practiced by MOST candidate thus far. (Aside – at least one candidate violated it intentionally in 2006 to make this very point). Asst. Attorney Gen. Mike McShane was quoted in several Vermont papers saying the A.G.'s office would sit back and wait to receive a complaint before “investigating.” I suspect that one reason the State might not be jumping to bring a case against anyone who breaks the $1,000 “limit” is this one little problem: THERE IS NO LAW on the books to violate. Hello!

Reality check: If the State were to charge someone with violating a contribution limit, the first thing a judge asks is “what statute did the defendent violate?” To which the prosecuter from the AG's office would respond, “it's our position *cough* that the defendent violated 17 V.S.A. §2805(a), which the legislature repealed in 1997. In front of most judges I know, that response will go over like a fart in church. The next thing the judge will say (and if s/he is lucky, the only and most polite statement a prosecuter can expect to hear) is “case dismissed.”

Back to Mr. Pollina. There are many problems with Anthony Pollina’s campaign. The fact that he will be lucky to garner the same 9.5% of the vote he received when he last ran for Governor is problem numero uno. 

His biggest problem is ditching the Progressive Party. We have heard many reasons why he did that. Personally, (among other reasons) I think he did it to preserve a face-saving option to drop out of the race. As an Independent, he can bail after the primary without leaving the Progressives saddled with a headless horseman candidate still on the ballot riding into November. He has a drop-out option as an Independent free agent that would otherwise be a painful option to exercise as the Progressive nominee.

This latest campaign finance flap, however, is a big distraction. It represents a painfully difficult choice rather than a legal liability.

One final thought. Off the bat, I said that Mr. Pollina owes the Governor a big fat wet sloppy kiss (I say it again here for those lucky enough to have purged that image from their minds, sorry!). Still, I'm not sure who should be giving who the reach-around on this one. If Mr. Pollina decides to breach the gentleman'sperson's agreement on $1,000.00 single source contributions, what then? The Governor had his reasons for vetoing the contribution limit in the first place *wink**wink*. Even though Mr. Pollina's campaign is going nowhere, think of the precedent it will set if he keeps the money. Think of the cover this gives the Governor to go nuclear on the money front. Once our little(former)Progressive boy pulls his finger out of the money dike, where do you think the river of big money contributions will flow?

I have a feeling the Douglas campaign will not demagogue the Pollina campaign's latest screw-up.  I also have a feeling the Douglas campaign sees this for the opportunity that it is.  

Will the press ask the candidates whether they will pledge to continue respecting the informal and non-binding $1,000 ceiling?  Will Governor Douglas make a pledge to hold the line or will he make a “I will follow the letter of the law” non-answer if asked?  We'll see.

NOTE:  Vermont's election laws (Title 17) can be found HERE.  The specific section — 17 V.S.A. §2805(a) — that was overturned by the Supreme Court is HERE.

 Loading ...

So much for the idea that Wesley Clark might get anywhere near an Obama administration, let alone be VP:

 * [new] He kept the date open… (38+ / 0-)

For a long time but we have a very active business that he needs to travel a lot for.  He wasn’t invited to speak at the convention.  I’m sure somebody in his office called the campaign and asked if he was going to be invited to speak because he needs to book meetings for that week if he isn’t in Denver.  Apparently the answer that came back was no.

It’s not a fake out or some secret plan, he isn’t going to be VP or probably anything else in an Obama administration, assuming he’s elected.

What he is going to do is go out and campaign for Obama and plenty of Democrats in house and senate races this Fall.

I know some you think you can change this by launching VP diaries a couple times a day in hopes that Obama will be swayed by the “netroots.”  Dude, when has that ever worked with this campaign?

It’s a beautiful day.  Go outside and get some sun.

“Apes don’t read philosophy.” “Yes they do, Otto, they just don’t understand it!”

by WesClarkJr on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 01:12:02 PM PDT

“When has that ever worked” indeed. Clark has become associated with the netroots and the progressive left, and Obama is clearly done with the progressive left in general and the netroots in particular. No big shocker – the guy’s always been a centrist, but the way its been going down also makes clear that he is in no way practicing anything other than what he refers to as the “old politics,” he’s just doing so with his own particular style.

So be it. We’ll all continue to work to get him elected, because the only alternative is unthinkable. But it’s clear from even the most casual pulse-taking of the mood among much of the activist left that from the day he’s sworn into office, we’re going to have to be dogging his every step to keep him from merrily cruising down the same tired road of Washington-style compromises and capitulations that steered the nation into GOP dominance over the 90’s.

And I think we’re more than ready to do that. President (I hope) Obama may be in for some eye-opening surprises…