Guess our outgoing Auditor Tom Salmon (mmmm, so good to say that) has some time on his hands as he prepares to formally check out of the office he hasn’t really wanted since, oh, I’m guessing, the day after he first occupied it. (see: his repeated and empty threats to run for higher office)  

Well, he had time enough to pay a visit to Treasurer Beth Pearce’s Facebook page this week and post a snarky, partisan remark. I’ll reproduce the full image after the jump, but here’s the text:

With all due respect, Governor Dean gets Atty General Sorrell through the primary over TJ Donovan with Super PaC (sic) funded commercials, now he’s the super critic of PAC money? Lest we forget when Wendy had 1/5 the amount of money of (sic) her opponent. No one crying then. What is the total raised and spent by each campaign as of today? Tell the public that.

Typo and bad grammar aside, let’s take a closer look at what our distinguished Auditor is saying.

The first sentence, I can’t really argue with. After that, though, we are reminded why we’ll be happy to see Tom Salmon go off to one of those high-paying out-of-state gigs he’s supposedly been offered. The naked partisanship, the faulty reasoning, the shaky grasp of math and literacy.

After the jump: the Facebook screenshot, and Tom Salmon’s woeful grasp of the facts.

_____________________________________________________

“Lest we forget when Wendy had 1/5 the amount of money of her opponent.” I went back through the campaign finance reports for this season. The only time Beth Pearce had anything close to that money advantage was at the first filing of the year — back on July 15, when the official campaigning had only just begun. Pearce had raised $82,000 in cash contributions, while Wilton had amassed $16,000. That’s four and a half to one, not five to one. But maybe Tom rounded up.

“No one crying then.” Well, no, it was a very early report. If anyone was crying, I’d imagine it was Wendy Wilton and/or Angry Jack Lindley. After all, Wilton was their best hope for electing a hardcore conservative to statewide office. And here comes Beth Pearce, the supposed political neophyte, bagging the big bucks and showing herself to be a real contender.

But the main point is that it was way too early for anyone to be crying, or drawing conclusions. It just meant Wilton had some work to do. The money gap closed in later campaign finance reports, and it was completely reversed upon the entry of Vermonter (Lenore Broughton) First into the fray, throwing gobs of cash into pro-Wilton advertisements in print, on the air and online.

“What is the total raised and spent by each campaign as of today? Tell the public that.” Uh, Tom, that’s a matter of public record. Not literally “today,” of course, but anyone with a computer can find out where the candidates stood on October 15 by visiting the Elections Division’s website. You ought to know that, considering you’ve run for office before.

To save you some trouble, the answer to your question is that as of October 15, Beth Pearce had raised $183,481 and spent #138,275. Wendy Wilton had raised $73,504 and spent $68,952. So Pearce has maintained a money advantage over Wilton, but nowhere near 5:1.

And Tom, good old free-marketeer, worshiper of the entrepreneurial spirit, why castigate Pearce for successful fundraising?

Besides, you’re missing the point and you know it. Wilton’s money disadvantage has been more than compensated for by Lenore Broughton’s checkbook. We don’t know exactly how much money Vermonter First has spent on Wilton’s behalf, but we do know that since October 8, it has spent nearly $200,000 for WIlton. We know it spent a lot on WIlton before that, but only Tayt Brooks (I.M.O.M.) knows the total.

So if you combine WIlton’s kitty with Broughton’s bucks, you get at least $261,000 spent for Wilton’s candidacy (and certainly far more than that) versus $166,000 spent by or on behalf of Pearce.

Okay, Tom. Put that in your calculator and add it up.