Common Cause has a (not-yet-identified) bone to pick with Shumlin (UPDATE: Fail)

( – promoted by odum)

UPDATE: The presser got cancelled. A quick call to the office indicated that the national office had pulled the rug out from under it to retool the issue before public release. I was informed that the press conference would be rescheduled for next week, that Executive Director Wally Roberts had “misread the law” and would come back witha complaint based on campaign spending, rather than contributions.

But that’s not likely. Word is that the Common Cause complaint is based on a reading that does not take into account Anthony Pollina’s complaint during 2008 that this (then) new campaign finance law was (allegedly) unfairly interpreted to his detriment as an independent, by restricting his fundraising based on the primary calendar. Roberts is allegedly basing his complaint on his literal interpretation of the language of the statute, and not the precedent set by Oxfeld v Sorrell.

To cut to the chase: there’s no there there. Common Cause VT did not have it’s ducks in a row, as there are no ducks. Expect this issue to die the straw death.



Hm. This doesn’t sound good. From the press release sent out by Vermont Common Cause:

Common Cause of Vermont (CCVT) will hold a Press Conference on Thursday, October 27 at 1 P.M. in the Cedar Creek room of the Statehouse to announce that we are requesting that the Attorney General investigate possible illegal contributions to the Shumlin for Governor campaign. CCVT will release the contents of their letter to the Attorney General and make available printouts of the spreadsheets it used to document its request.

11 thoughts on “Common Cause has a (not-yet-identified) bone to pick with Shumlin (UPDATE: Fail)

  1. thereby giving those with more money, greater freedom of “speech;” privately funded campaigns waste an incredible amount of public resources on stuff like this.

    With the simple prohibition of private funding, including personal wealth, for election campaigns, a truly level playing field could be ensured; legislation would begin to favor the country’s best interest over those of just the rich; and public money would be less likely to bankroll sweetheart pork paybacks for heavy political tippers.

    To anyone who takes the position that, in order to inform the voters, you’ve got to have gigantic bus and plane tours to a few “key” districts, and chicken suppers to lubricate checkbooks:  let me introduce you to a little thing called the internet, where most ordinary people can find all the answers necessary to make an informed decision about nearly anything.

    As I recall, President Obama never set foot in Vermont during the 2008 campaign but we were the first to “elect” him.

  2. What a dufus move.  

    It seemed implausible that Shumlin would be so clumsy to do what Common Cause accused him of doing.  It seemed more implausible that if there was something to be found, that Shumlin’s political foes wouldn’t have unearthed it by now.  

    This speaks very, very poorly of the group Common Cause.  It strikes a big hole in any credibility that they were hoping to establish.    

  3. Though it did seem somewhat plausible at first, my guess was that if there were any truth to this it had nothing to do w/Shumlin himself, but a campaign management error.

    I was suspicious b/c generally, when these things come to light, the ducks are already in a row & an announcement of the charges then follows. When the delay was announced, it no longer appeared plausible.

    I did look up Common Cause however the board member roster search didn’t yield the usual suspects. The trail went cold.

    What is clear is that someone surely has it in for Shumlin, it is unclear exactly who or why.

Comments are closed.