Well, now. Vermont’s two-fisted Attorney General, Bill Sorrell, has filed suit against Brian Dubie and the Republican Governors Association, accusing them of collusion in Dubie’s 2010 campaign for governor. The Burlington Free Press somewhat curiously says that it “could be the first case of the state taking enforcement action against an individual political candidate,” which sounds significant but was apparently too difficult to fact-check. “Could be”?

Anyway, Sorrell charges candidate and entity with sharing polling information in a way that was “unusual compared with common election practices.” To wit:

…the state cites testimony under oath by Dubie campaign manager Corry Bliss and RGA regional field director Dennise Casey that they communicated regularly during the campaign period, and that Bliss agreed to share Dubie’s polling information with the association. Casey, a Vermonter who was Douglas’ campaign manager in 2006 and 2008 and eventually his deputy chief of staff, went to work for the RGA in 2009.

The shared polling information amounts to a contribution from Dubie to the RGA, the state alleges, and should have been reported in state election filings by Dubie and the RGA but was not. Likewise, the state alleges that the RGA’s television and radio ads should have counted as contributions to Dubie’s campaign.

Dubie’s polling information allegedly helped RGA formulate its ad campaign supporting Dubie and slamming Shumlin. (Or, in the charming words of campaign strategist Gene Ulm, “WE NEED TO LAY WOOD ON SHUMLIN.” E-mail message, all caps. Good grief, is politics always such a soul-curdling enterprise?)

After the jump: a carefully worded denial and a stock accusation of prosecutorial politics.  

Dubie and RGA deny the charges and have asked the court to dismiss the case:

In their responses filed in court, [Dubie’s lawyer Brady] Toensing and association attorney Chris Roy argue that sharing polling information does not constitute coordination. The state offers no evidence that Dubie knew what ads the RGA was going to air or wanted those ads aired, Toensing argued in court papers filed Monday.

Hmm. They don’t deny the sharing of polling information, which would seem to be a crucial part of the case. And they go out of their way to deny something that Sorrell doesn’t allege: that Dubie “knew what ads the RGA was going to air.” They appear to be aiming for a very narrow definition of “collusion,” which makes me think that they’re in trouble on the merits of the case.

Toensing also goes after the messenger instead of the message, accusing Sorrell of partisanship: “The attorney general, at the behest of the Democratic Party, had engaged in intrusive and extensive investigations of this and other campaign matters.” (Italics mine.)

That’s pretty strong stuff, calling Sorrell a puppet.

Sorrell denies it. In fact, he points out that the case was filed without any fanfare in December, and has only come to light because of Toensing and Roy’s filing.

Myself, I doubt that the charges are politically motivated. Sorrell certainly didn’t try to publicize the case, which is what a politically-minded prosecutor would do. Besides, the short-term gain isn’t worth the potential long-term pain of having a groundless case thrown out of court. I suspect that Sorrell has a lot of evidence on his side.

If so, this could do some damage to Dubie’s carefully constructed image as a Jim Douglas-style nice guy. Stay tuned.