In the middle of each month I, like a migratory bird, find myself drawn the Secretary of State’s office to pick up the latest round of campaign finance reports. And every time, I can’t help but notice that one of the lowest fundraising totals belongs to one Doug Hoffer, Dem/Prog candidate for Auditor. And I ask myself, a little louder each time, why? Especially when I see impressive totals for almost every other Dem.
He’s supremely qualified for the job. He’s done his duty for the party (parties) by assuming the thankless task of opposing an incumbent last time around. That sort of party service usually counts for a lot. Why are so few folks cutting checks to Hoffer for Auditor?
On deadline day this week, I briefly compared and contrasted Doug with Beth Pearce, appointed incumbent Treasurer. Both are very wonky folks, extremely well qualified. Both have much more experience in their fields of expertise than in politics. Doug, in fact, has a significant leg up on Beth in that department, since he ran a statewide campaign in 2010. Indeed, the big unknown about Beth’s candidacy was whether she’d be able to campaign effectively, since she’d never done it before.
But while Doug’s fundraising has lagged behind almost everyone, Beth has been taking in a truly impressive haul for a first-timer. In fact, she’s raised more money than any non-gubernatorial, non-Congressional candidate of either party — and that includes Bill Sorrell, who had to wage a desperate primary campaign while Beth’s been sailing along with a sizable edge over her Republican challenger Woozy Winks. Er, Wendy Wilton.
So, why are liberal wallets open to Beth, and closed to Doug? Particularly mainstream Democratic wallets, since that’s where most of the liberal money is?
I have a few ideas, and none of them are very flattering to the Democratic establishment.
— Gold ol’ Vince. Vince Illuzzi’s been around a long time, he’s done some good stuff, so let’s give him a sinecure. This is one of my least favorite things about Vermont: our tendency to value familiarity over talent or qualifications. It’s also a specific weakness of the labor movement; its worst moments have been characterized by cronyism. (And I’m a huge supporter of organized labor, and believe that its decline is one of the root causes of our society’s economic imbalance.)
Vince makes a rather weak argument as to why he’s more qualified than Doug: basically, he’s been around state government for a long time and knows his way around. Well, Doug’s been around too, and he’s done a hell of a lot of fiduciary oversight of state government. Which is precisely what the Auditor is supposed to do. Also, I don’t know about you, but I’d rather have an outsider in this particular job than the consummate insider.
Maybe Vince should get a nice plaque or a gold watch, but should we really treat the Auditor’s office as a reward for being a good guy?
— The Progressive taint*. This is a tiresome meme in Vermont Democratic politics. There are some Dems who just can’t stand to support someone who is, or ever was, a Progressive. This year and in 2010, Doug is running as a fusion candidate, but his background is in the Progressive Party; this makes some Dems cool to him, if not overtly hostile. If there’s any truth to this notion, my message is: cut it out. Grow up, get over yourself, and support your party’s candidate.
*No, not “Tayt” — “taint.” Although the confusion would be understandable.
— Doug’s not “nice” enough. With his tough talk and clear vision of fiscal propriety, Doug has rubbed some people the wrong way. To quote Seven Days’ excellent cover story on the Auditor’s race, “Over the years, lawmakers and journalists alike have felt Hoffer’s wrath, especially when they flub the facts.” And while Vince can be a USDA-prime asshole, his outbursts are brief and transitory, while Doug has raised questions about efficiency, propriety, and the job performance of some powerful people.
Which, again, is exactly what I’d like to see in an Auditor. Well, that plus a solidly liberal worldview, which Doug also possesses. Us liberals should be all for making government as efficient as possible, in order to reinforce our political stance that government is capable of doing lots of good things and making a positive difference. An effective and liberal Auditor could be a key player in ensuring that Vermont’s Democratic administration delivers on its political message.
Which brings us to my conspiracy-theory idea…
— Doug would be too good at the job. Or, as UVM political science professor Garrison Nelson told Seven Days: “He could prove to be a real headache to Shumlin.” Especially when the state’s Joint Fiscal Office is now projecting a budget gap of $50-70 million in fiscal year 2014. Recent budgets have been squeezed pretty tight, and finding another big chunk of savings is going to be very difficult. The temptation will be there to cut some corners and fudge some stuff. (Not implying any particular perfidy on Shumlin’s part; when times are tough, many executives rely on some budgetary tricks to get by. Look at Arnold Schwarzenegger: his entire tenure as California Governor consisted of a series of financial shell games.)
At a time like that, it might be inconvenient to have a hard-core green-eyeshade guy in the politically independent post of Auditor. So, would the Governor and the Democratic Party just as soon not have to deal with a top-quality numbers guy who’s no respecter of persons? Would they prefer Vince, the political insider who can either be co-opted or dismissed as a Republican crank if he raises a fuss?
I find all of these notions troubling, and I hope they are not true. I would love to hear a better, and more flattering, explanation for Doug’s fundraising troubles. Any Democrats care to offer one?
I’m not sure which would be the most unsettling, but probably it would be the last one.
Something is definitely wrong with this picture, though.
Doug should be the candidate that everyone can get behind. He has no political debts to pay; no back-bench enemies; unparalleled professional credibility.
Beth Pearce and her campaign representatives (former union agitator and erstwhile legislative candidate Ralph Montefusco and campaign coordinator Ryan Emerson) have worked the phones and email/social media contacts to ask supporters for campaign funds. Seems likely that former Treasurer and current Administration Secretary Jeb Spaulding, a strong supporter of Pearce’s, might have made a few calls on her behalf, too, and he definitely knows where the money is.
I’m not entirely sure that I’ve gotten anything from Doug Hoffer soliciting campaign donations, although I am a supporter of his and he knows it. I’m not at all sure he has a campaign staff. And while you’re castigating the Dems for lack of support, why not also heap coals on the Progs who have abandoned most of their candidates, fusion and otherwise.
So, the take-home is that money doesn’t just appear. You have to ask. And ask again. You have to get your friends to ask their friends. I suspect Doug Hoffer doesn’t want to be beholden, so he doesn’t ask.
And BTW, didn’t you notice that the “excellent” cover story you cite in Seven Days spent about twice as much of its political prose on the length, highlights, and nadirs of Vince Illuzzi’s political career and resulting endorsements, as it did on Hoffer’s background and qualifications? Not to mention, Ken Picard treated Doug Hoffer to the typical treatment a female candidate gets: a description of what he was wearing in St. Albans; Illuzzi’s wardrobe was not described.
NanuqFC
In a Time of Universal Deceit, TELLING the TRUTH Is a Revolutionary Act. ~ George Orwell
My family is hosting a house party for Doug Hoffer and Cass Gekas on Thursday up in Swanton. Good food, some libations and a chance to speak with these fine people. A great chance to donate and help fill Hoffer’s coffers (couldn’t resist). E-mail me at mike@ilikemikevt.com for details.
Thanks for the kind words about this week’s cover story in Seven Days. NanuqFC, point taken on not describing Mr. Illuzzi’s wardrobe as I did Mr. Hoffer’s. So, for the record: Vince worked the room at the VT Grocers’ Association trade show dressed in a dark suit and black shoes that made him look like a funeral director. But I’m not sure what point you’re making about me giving Hoffer “the typical treatment a female candidate gets”: Are you pissed I mentioned anyone’s wardrobe? Doug was well-dressed, that’s all. Don’t read anything more into it. Ditto on the deviled eggs and supermarket shrimp.
While this may be Beth Pearce’s first race, she has the advantage of being the incumbent. Rightly or wrongly, incumbents running to hold their position generally do better in fundraising than do non-incumbents running for office.
I’d also echo NanuqFC’s comment that the Pearce campaign seems to have devoted more energy and focus to fundraising.
While I don’t discount that the factors you mention play a role – not just in dollars raised, but also in the general failure to enthusiastically embrace Hoffer’s candidacy for an open office on the part of SOME party insiders – I’d also remind folks that races for down ballot statewide offices in Vermont tend to be very lonely. Candidates often have only part-time staff (or no staff at all). They have minimal name recognition. They receive minimal press coverage. It is hard to get volunteers and donors excited about campaigns for low profile jobs that are poorly understood (and that don’t tend to have much to do with sexy issues that legislators deal with). During my time involved with the state party, I honestly can’t remember a down ballot candidate who didn’t feel that the party structure was helping them enough.
Personally, I think Hoffer’s race is the most important of all the lower statewide races. But you don’t have to buy into conspiracy theories to explain why Pearce has raised a lot more money than Hoffer.
….is getting all the dough because everyone is so freaked out about Wendy Wilton.