First of all, WHEW! Very glad to wake up this morning and see that Superstorm Sandy didn’t hit Vermont very hard. Hope all readers are intact, with power, and without fallen trees. Dunno if the lack for significant damage will force cancellation of the big Shumlin/Scott “Hands Across Sandy” tour; I sure hope so.

And with a week left before the election, Super PAC activity continued apace in Vermont, with more activity from Vermonters First and a counter-attack by state house Democrats.

Late last week, Lenore Broughton’s conservative Vermonters First filed a brace of mass-media-buy reports. Some were for relatively small amounts, but there was another $43,000 for a mass mailing on behalf of 41 Republican candidates for the Legislature. And, surprise, surprise, another $36,000 for Treasurer candidate Wendy Wilton.

Which brings total VF spending for WIlton to $145,000. Since October 11. As I’ve said before, we have no idea how many Broughton Bucks were spent on Wilton before that date, because regular campaign finance reports don’t provide a breakdown of funds spent for specific candidates.

As of October 15, Lenore Broughton had donated almost $700,000 to Vermonters First, and VF had spent the lion’s share of that money. Since its spending spree has continued since October 15, we can assume that Broughton’s generosity has continued as well. It seems likely that she’ll crack the $1 million mark by Election Day. (We won’t find out until November 15, the next deadline for campaign finance filings.)

And as VPIRG pointed out in a Monday news release, Broughton’s pre-October 15 total of $683,000 was

…equal to 60.7 percent of all of the individual contributions made to all of the Democratic and Republican statewide candidates in Vermont (not including candidate contributions) as of October 15.

Which is another way of saying that Lenore Broughton is single-handedly trying to buy our election.

Meanwhile, a Democratic group with a whole lot less money is trying to fight back.  

As reported by the Vermont Press Bureau’s Peter Hirschfeld:

In a series of radio advertisements and mailings, the Vermont Democratic House Campaign and Vermont House Solidarity PAC chides “Vermonters First” for contaminating local politics with outside money.

Of course, the Democratic groups have only $10,000 to spend — chump change by Broughton standards. Their mailers are designed to resemble those of Vermonters First, but with a very different message: don’t let big money take over our politics. Their radio ad features House Speaker Shap Smith:

“This election season we have seen some misleading ads that claim to represent everyday Vermonters,” Smith says in the spot. “Since our first town meeting, Vermont has been a state where everyone’s voice is heard. Your vote is your voice – don’t let it be drowned out by big money this Election Day.”

It was the first-ever radio ad for Smith, who says claims being made by Vermonters First “aren’t something you want to leave unrebutted.”

Amen, brah.  

A few brief items from Monday on the campaign trail…

Whatever happened to the elephants’ memory? Terri Hallenbeck of the Freeploid recently received a campaign mailing from Republican state house candidate George Schiavone. And nowhere on the mailer does it say who paid for it. Just the latest in a series of identical violations by Republican candidates this year.  

And considering that we’re hearing about some of them purely by happenstance — an illegal mailing going to an opposing candidate or journalist — you have to wonder if we’re only seeing the tip of the iceberg.

Schiavone’s explanation:

“I goofed,” he said. “I just forgot.”

Uh-huh. Hard to believe, considering that…

Schiavone was in the House for seven terms before stepping down and is now challenging incumbent Democrat Joan Lenes to try to claim his seat back. In other words, he’s no rookie who just didn’t know there were rules about these things.

The topper:  Schiavone has another mailing set to go out. It also doesn’t list the funding source. He says it’s too late to recall and reprint the material. Darn.

After the jump: VPIRG, Miss Daisy, Shummy & Phil.

VPIRG calls for Super PAC reform. It’s good to see others picking up GMD’s concern about Lenore Broughton and Vermonters First. The latest is VPIRG, which is calling for new election laws to better rein in — or at least publicize — the activities of independent Super PACs and wealthy individuals. VPIRG notes the obvious conflicts in Broughton’s outpouring of money on behalf of a single candidate, Wendy Wilton.

VPIRG’s news release points out a possible silver lining in the Miss Daisy cloud: grounds for legal action.

Since Buckley v. Valeo, a consistent majority of the Court has found that the danger of quid pro quo corruption – where candidates are inclined to ingratiate themselves to their wealthy backers – is a valid rationale for limiting direct contributions to candidates. Furthermore, the Court has determined that the mere appearance of corruption, caused by unlimited gifts from contributors to candidates, also warrants contribution limits.

 

“The level of influence being wielded by a single individual in Vermont right now offers more than a whiff of corruption,” said Burns. “It stinks.”

… “Certainly Ms. Wilton is well aware of her patron, and she’s even noted that Ms. Broughton has ‘every right to say good things about me,'” said Burns.  “So if Ms. Wilton is elected, does anyone really believe that she will not owe Ms. Broughton a giant debt of gratitude?”

I’d claim credit for saying that first, but I care less about credit than I do about publicizing the dangers of Broughton’s money bomb wherever possible. VPIRG’s list of reforms:

— Require Super PACs to disclose all contributions within 24 hours of their receipt during the last 30 days before an election.

— Require Super PACs to prominently list their top contributors in all mass-media materials.

— If a single contributor is responsible for more than half of the funding for a Super PAC, then that individual would have to appear in all electronic advertisements, claiming responsibility for them. (Which would be especially troubling to the notoriously camera-shy Broughton.)

VPIRG is also accepting ideas for other election law reforms, with an eye toward working with the Legislature in the coming session. Contact them via their website.

Shumlin goes on tour… with Phil Scott. Aw, dammit. Shummy’s spokesflack Sue Allen notifies the media that the Governor’s schedule has been canceled for Tuesday due to the threat of bad weather. Instead, Shumlin will join Lt. Gov. Phil Scott in visiting areas of the state impacted by Hurricane Sandy.

Normally this would be a nice move. But one week before Election Day? Good God, Shummy, why don’t you just go ahead and endorse Mr. Happy Face? Y’know, if I were Cass Gekas, I’d be calling Shummy to tear him a new one. But I wonder if he’s even accepting her calls.

The Governor only has time for a single victory rally with the members of his own party’s ticket, but he can make room for a Republican on his Sandy Tour. With all due respect, Governor, that sucks.

If I hadn’t just posted my weekly Thumbs Up/Thumbs Down, I know who’d be getting the poke in the eye. Well, there’s always next week.  

Yes folks, the French Toast Alert System may be on SEVERE, but vital services must be continued even in the face of the coming Disasterphecalypse. Like, er, this week’s edition of Thumbs And A Poke. Truly an essential service.

Joe Benning and all the other political figures who plan to take down their campaign signs, lest they become sharp-edged Sandy-blown projectiles. As far as we know, Benning made the call first; but now, Governor Shumlin, Senators Phil Baruth and Tony Pollina, Rep. Diane Lanpher, the Vermont Democratic Party, and even Angry Jack Lindley of the VTGOP have joined the call for temporary sign removal. (I hope Rob Roper doesn’t think this is a Democratic plot. Uh-oh, I just gave him the idea.)

What’d be really nice is if candidates and staffers went around and took down all the signs they could find, and then returned the signs to their respective candidates for reposting after the wind dies down. But that may be wishful thinking. Or even illegal collusion.

Our political leaders are taking the responsible course here. But leave it to Angry Jack to put a selfish spin on this selfless endeavor:

“Signs are expensive,” Lindley said. “You don’t want to lose them.”

The Republican majority in the US House, for not allowing a vote on renewing the farm bill, thus letting it expire. Which means a halt to the milk price support system that helps keep Vermont dairy farmers going. It’s a perfect example of the partisan gridlock that — false equivalency alert — is commonly blamed on “both sides,” but is mostly practiced by the Republicans. Or, as Lisa Rathke of the Associated Press puts it:

Republican leaders in the House have wanted to avoid a fight between Democrats, who oppose cuts to food stamps, and Republicans, who want bigger cuts than have been proposed, close to the election. [Agriculture Secretary Tom] Vilsack believes the farm bill was stalled to avoid a debate about the depth of cuts to farm programs that the House leadership is envisioning.

As with so many other issues, the Republicans fully realize that their position is unpopular. So they’d rather let the whole program expire than take a stand on their alleged principles.

Of course, there’d be a lot less need for the milk price support program if there was actually a free market for dairy products. Instead, we have a system that’s weighted heavily in favor of big agribusiness. And in the Northeast, we have a market that’s dominated by a single player. As a result, the end of the milk price support program puts a huge additional burden on our already suffering dairy farmers. And the Republicans don’t care.

After the jump: Governor Shumlin, Wendy Wilton, VerMints, the city of Barre, and a poke to the Vermont media.

Governor Shumlin, for seeking an extra $8.8 million for low-income heating assistance. The money would help make up for federal cuts (thanks again, Congressional Republicans), which would result in an almost 50% cut in the average household payment. By the time you read this, the state’s Emergency Board may have already allocated $7.9 million from available contingency funds. The rest would come by legislative action in the new biennium. The Governor explains:

“There is not a Vermonter who wants to see low-income Vermonters cold in their homes, making terrible choices between heat, the medicine they need to survive, food, clothing and keeping warm.”

Oh, I can think of a few Vermonters who might well say, “Hey, if you can’t pay to heat your home, get a better job! Or move to Arizona!” As Mitt Romney puts it, just use the “creative destruction” of the free market system. After all, we’d hate for you to survive the winter only to develop a nasty case of dependency on government and loss of entrepreneurial spirit. Don’t you know that freezing your ass off is the mother of invention?

Wendy Wilton, the increasingly desperate Republican candidate for Treasurer, for ratcheting up the ridiculous attacks on incumbent Beth Pearce. She’s gotten so far out there, that even the usually cautious Vermont political media can barely suppress its snorts of disbelief when reporting her latest outrages.

Last Monday, Wilton suffered the most embarrassing debate moment of any statewide candidate this year when she had to confess being unaware that Rutland had been put on a watch list compiled by the Vermont Municipal Bond Bank. Since she’s the Treasurer of Rutland, and since the listing was because of the city’s unfunded pension liability when she’s tried to smear Pearce over the state’s pension fund, it was a deeply embarrassing moment.

So she launched a flailing counterattack, accusing Pearce of releasing confidential information (it was publicly available) that could hurt Rutland’s finances (the VMBB says it won’t), and, to top it all off, accused the VMBB Board of putting Rutland on the watch list in an attempt to torpedo Wilton’s campaign (the Board has a long, unblemished record of objectivity).

Next thing you know, she’ll be seeing black helicopters and yammering about invisible radiation.

Vermont Hard Cider Company and CEO Bret Williams for a real Vermont success story. The Middlebury-based company has, almost single-handedly, established hard cider as a viable market sector in America. Its brand, Woodchuck, accounts for 44% of domestic hard cider sales. But now the big players are entering the market — Boston Beer, MillerCoors, Anheuser-Busch. And Vermont Hard Cider is taking a necessary step toward defending its turf by accepting a buyout offer from C&C Group, the top hard-cider maker in Ireland.

I realize there’s always a danger when a local firm is bought out by a much larger company. But it’s often the best thing when a company gets big enough that it has to compete on a national level: you need deep pockets, and you need a partner powerful enough to negotiate the constant battles in the retail marketplace. C&C seems to be a solid partner; it plans to keep Vermont Hard Cider in Vermont, and will go ahead with a major expansion planned for next year.

And Williams deserves a huge amount of credit for taking Vermont Hard Cider from near-bankruptcy in 2003 to its current prosperity and growth. As the Freeploid reported:

Williams mortgaged his home, liquidated his 401(k), and “pulled the change out of the ashtray” to buy the company with a small group of investors, mostly college buddies. He declined to say how many original investors there were, but said the group did not include any family members, private equity companies or banks.

“When you’re broke and hemorrhaging cash, banks don’t return your phone calls,” Williams said.

Kudos to Williams and all the folks at Vermont Hard Cider for turning a failing company into a prosperous market leader. And somehow doing it all in a state that, according to Randy Brock, is fatally unfriendly to business.

VerMints, for selling a deceptive product and whining about getting caught. The ingredients come from elsewhere; the mints are manufactured in Canada; and, according to the company website, its headquarters (formerly in Burlington) are now in Massachusetts. VerMints were labeled “Vermont’s Organic Mints” and are often sold in Vermont-oriented specialty and gift shops.

CEO Gary Rinkus claims he didn’t know about Vermont’s labeling laws and defense of the “Vermont” brand until getting a letter from the Attorney General’s office last year. And since then, he’s relabeled the mints to remove the actual “Vermont” name. Now the AG is suing VerMints for years of deception, and Rinkus is complaining that the AG is “going after small businesses and beating them up for money.” No, Gary; they’re enforcing a law that every food producer in Vermont should know backwards and forwards.

Oh, and he now claims that the name “VerMint” has nothing to do with the state; he says “Ver” is a reference to the Latin root word for “truth,” relevant because his mints contain no artificial ingredients. Uh-huh, sure thing. There may be a lot of “ver” in your mints, Gary, but precious little in your defense.

The city of Barre, finally celebrating the completion of its extensive Main Street reconstruction project. For those unfamiliar with Barre, Main Street is pretty much the only east-west route through the city. It badly needed a makeover, but the actual project was painful for an already-struggling community.

Now it’s done, and there are other signs of life in the city: the City Place project, the planned move of a few hundred state workers downtown, a classy new pub about to open in a long-abandoned building, and a bunch of hardy retailers old and new who weathered the closing of Main Street. Barre’s turnaround has been forecast over and over again, but this time, it might actually be happening.

The Vermont media, for once again giving far too much coverage to a tiny protest movement. This time, it’s the battle to “save Bill and Lou,” mounted by a small number of misguided animal-rights activists. For those just emerging from their spider-holes, Bill and Lou are the unofficial mascots of Green Mountain College: a working team that’s about to be split up and sent to the slaughterhouse, with the meat destined for use in the college cafeteria.

This has resulted in a global online petition drive that has gathered more than 45,000 “signatures” from those seeking to save Bill and Lou. Which, in the world of the Internet, isn’t really that fabulous a total. But what was even sadder was last Friday’s protest at the GMC campus, lavishly covered by Vermont’s print and broadcast media.

A protest of approximately 15 people. Fifteen. Which was fewer than the number of counter-protesters from the college community, and may well have been fewer than the number of reporters and camera crew on hand to document this “outpouring” of support.

I’ve been around long enough to remember the civil rights struggle and the anti-Vietnam protests, which were studiously underplayed by the mainstream media until they got too big to ignore. That’s been the fate of virtually every left-wing protest since then, up to and including Occupy. But there’s something about homegrown Vermont protests, especially when they seem to harken back to simpler times, that draws our media like moths to a flame.

The anti-wind movement is another example. The numbers, when you look at them, really aren’t impressive. But every time there’s a gathering of six, or 20, or 50 anti-wind protesters, it’s all over the news.  And when less than 200 people gathered in Montpelier, VTDigger entitles its story “Protesters throng to Statehouse lawn in opposition of (sic) industrial wind.”

“Throng”? Really?

As in “a multitude,” “a large, densely-packed crowd”?

Conventional wisdom has it that there’s growing controversy over large-scale wind. The main source of that “wisdom,” I would argue, is the news coverage that’s been consistently out of proportion to the size of the movement. Every little protest, every activity — and now, every movement of turbine gear into the state — is vigilantly chronicled. And when you see lots of articles and reports on anti-wind protests, it’s natural to assume that there are lots of people involved.

There’s no real objective evidence of that. The polls consistently show significant majorities in support of ridgeline wind. Annette Smith got less than 400 write-in votes in her bid for the Progressive nomination for Governor, and there’s certainly no sign of a groundswell of support for her current write-in bid.

The truth about the anti-wind movement: it’s a very small group of very committed, very vocal people who have benefited from overindulgent coverage by the Vermont media. And that coverage has resulted in a distorted view of the movement’s importance. Which, in turn, feeds more coverage, and you get a vicious cycle.

So, a poke in the eye, and a plea for a bit more discernment, when it comes to protest movements of all kinds.  

When I saw the TV listing for today’s “You Can Quote Me” on WCAX, I just knew I had to tune in. Kirstin Carlson’s guests: VTGOP chair Jack Lindley and VT Dem chair Jake Perkinson.

Yes, you’ve heard of the Duel in the Desert… the Thrilla in Manila… the Rumble in the Jungle… well, now we have the Scuffle in the Studio. The Desktop Dustup. Or maybe the Melee on Teevee.

Actually, it was a reasonably civil affair. The guys stuck to their talking points, but tried to frame them in ways that seemed nonpartisan. They actually agreed on a couple of things, most notably the malign influence of Super PACs on politics. (Although Jack Lindley’s prescription, to lift limits on individual donations to political parties, is certainly odd and self-serving: “We can end the toxic effect of big money by letting Lenore Broughton give her millions directly to me!”)

I saw plenty of signs that Jake is a regular reader of GMD. Or maybe it’s just that great minds think alike. Because when he was talking about Vermonters First and Lenore Broughton, it was almost like he was reading straight from GMD. Whatever; I’m just glad to have him spreading the word about Broughton’s effort to buy the election.

After the jump: Civility in politics, Carlson’s one misstep, and a new Republican conspiracy theory.

The two chairs agreed that there’s a lack of civility in politics, but they disagreed (natch) on the causes. Jake put it at the feet of the Super PACs, while Angry Jack blamed the arrogance of the Democrats due to their dominance of state politics. Jake, when asked whether one-party rule is good for Vermont, played another card from the GMD deck: Vermonters have elected a lot of Dems because the Dems have better values and candidates. He also cited the national and state GOP’s swing to the right as a factor in alienating voters, and added that in Vermont, “the conservative messaging is attributable to one person, Lenore Broughton.”

Which, in terms of financing campaign messages, is certainly true and needs to be said. Angry Jack’s response: He called Jake’s answer “not very helpful” and claimed that the VTGOP was a big-tent party*, not controlled by any one person. True, it’s not controlled; but in financial terms, it’s been completely overshadowed by Broughton’s self-funded Super PAC.

*”Hey, there’s plenty of room for all kinds of folks, from Paul LePage to Allen West!”

And here we get to the one time when I thought Kristin Carlson strayed from her role as impartial questioner and put her thumb on the Republican side of the scale. She asked Jake about Broughton by asserting that Broughton’s activities are legal, that she’s within her rights, but what about protests outside her home? Is that really fair?

Well, first, there was only one protest. And second, by focusing on that single event, Carlson is ignoring the corrosive effect of Broughton’s money avalanche. Does she think Broughton’s unprecedented spending, her complete lack of transparency, and her obvious attempt to buy an election, are outweighed by one protest? Apparently so.

Jake’s response: The Democratic Party had nothing to do with the protest, which represented a frustration over the influence of big money in politics.

Carlson then played the old false-equivalency game by rejoining that Bernie Sanders has seven million dollars while his challenger has almost nothing. Yeah, both sides do it! Jake’s response: Bernie raised his money from thousands of very small donors. Carlson responded, Yeah, mostly out of staters.

But otherwise, she did play it down the middle, asking reasonable questions on both sides.

I’ll point out one other item, perhaps the oddest thing Jack Lindley said. Carlson asked why the Republicans have so few officeholders, and had trouble putting together a full ticket this year. Lindley said that it’s hard to participate because the legislative sessions have gotten longer (have they really? Since when?) and that makes it difficult for businesspeople to hold office. “Hardworking Republicans have to make a bigger sacrifice to participate,” he actually said.

As opposed to lazy, shiftless, do-nothing Democrats? Dirty trust-fund hippies who have plenty of time to lounge around Montpelier, smoking pot and thinking up new laws and taxes?

Then he got extra-weird, by blaming the lack of Republicans in office on the burdens placed by Democrats on businesses. Taxes and health care reform make businesspeople’s lives harder, and that prevents them from running for office. So says Angry Jack.

Aha! A new conspiracy theory! Democratic policy is not meant to make people’s lives better, or soften the jagged edges of a free-market society; they’re designed to keep businesspeople so busy filling out paperwork and dealing with bureaucracy and regulation that they can’t assume their proper role as our political leaders.

Sheesh.

Well, I think I’ve spent enough time beating this dead horse (or injured ox, as the case may be). As of this writing, the video hasn’t yet been posted on the WCAX website. But when it is, you can find it here. And you can quote them.  

It’s getting to be a consistent pattern on the Republican side: violations of state election law, mostly having to do with disclosure requirements.

This past week alone, the VT Democratic Party has filed four complaints with the Attorney General’s office. And unlike Republican charges, which come in the form of “raising concerns” or “asking questions,” the Dems have specific evidence to support their charges.

The alleged Republican violations are technical in nature, but as Dem party chair Jake Perkinson pointed out, the laws “are not onerous or overly complex.” It’s Politics 101: You put out a flyer, publish an ad, or buy time on radio or TV, you disclose who paid the bill and notify any candidate mentioned in the ad.  

First, on October 23, the Dems accused Vermonters First of failing to notify House candidate Maida Townsend that she was being targeted in a mass mailing, and of failing to include her on its list of targeted candidates. (Townsend discovered this when she, herself, received the mailer at her home.)

The following day, the Dems accused Windham County candidates Dick Tracy (Senate) and Scott Ranney (House) of jointly sending a mailing that didn’t state its funding source, as required by law.

And on Friday, the Dems accused David Ainsworth, House candidate from South Royalton, of five separate violations over the past two months.  (This is a rematch of a 2010 election in which Democrat Sarah Buxton defeated Ainsworth by one single vote, so the violations are especially noteworthy.)

The Dems accuse Ainsworth of failure to disclose funding sources on campaign material, failure to report a media buy made within 30 days of the election as required by law, and failure to file campaign finance reports on time.

The Dems also ask the AG to look into possible coordination between individual candidates and Vermonters First, since the nature of the violations appears to show a consistent pattern.

These allegations are relatively minor, but their numbers are increasing. That would seem to indicate one of three things: incompetence in the basics of legal campaigning, a disconcertingly casual approach to obeying the law, or an effort to conceal the money flow (since most of the alleged violations concern disclosure of funding sources).

The AG’s office has launched inquiries into the first three complaints. A probe of the Ainsworth charges will probably follow within the next few business days. Again, none of this is truly scandalous, but it’s a good thing that the Dems are keeping a sharp eye on the Republicans. Especially with the unprecedented nature of Vermonters First’s spending in this campaign.  

ICYMI, there’s a newly-released poll in the race for Treasurer. (It was conducted in late September, but was just made public.) The Vermont Press Bureau’s Peter Hirschfeld has a short story, not paywalled, at the VPB website; and a more detailed story, paywalled, on the Times Argus website and in the Saturday paper. (Presumably in the Rutland Herald as well.)

The survey was done by Public Policy Polling, a left-leaning operation out of North Carolina. The results are generally positive for Beth Pearce. Topline:

When voters aren’t supplied with party identification, according to Public Policy Polling, Wilton and Pearce are in a statistical dead heat. Asked, however, whether they would vote for “Democrat Beth Pearce or Republican Wendy Wilton,” the incumbent leads by 46 percent to 37 percent.

Furthermore, the poll found an electoral edge for single-payer health care: 53% of Vermonters approve of single-payer, while 38% disapprove. And although PPP is known to be left-leaning, the Vermont experts quoted by Hirschfeld say the results are legitimate.

That’s the news. Here are a few notes.  

— The poll indicates that a lot of respondents simply don’t know the candidates. The party label alone makes a big difference for quite a few voters.

— Since the poll was taken a month ago, the results do not reflect the last month’s worth of Vermonters First carpet-bombing on WIlton’s behalf. And they don’t reflect the last couple weeks’ worth of charges and counter-charges, in which Pearce has come out with a clear rhetorical advantage.

— At least some of that partisan advantage should stick with Pearce, since the candidates are party-identified on the ballot.

— This poll is a positive indicator for Doug Hoffer. Presumably, he’d enjoy a party-identification advantage similar to Pearce’s. Perhaps even bigger, since the Auditor’s race isn’t nearly as high-profile as the Treasurer’s.

— The results appear to reflect the damage done to the Republican brand by the VTGOP’s run to the right and the national party’s Tea Party and big money orientation.  

— The year-long efforts to smear health care reform by the VTGOP, Vermonters for Health Care Freedom, the Campaign for Vermont (Prosperity), and others, have done virtually nothing to move public opinion. That 38% disapproval is pretty much in line with the hard-core Republican vote in Vermont. They haven’t changed the minds of anyone in the middle.

— Judging by the campaign strategy of WIlton and Vermonters First, I’d say their polling has shown similar results. Wilton is steadfastly denying that she opposes health care reform, so she obviously believes that position would cost her votes. And VF avoids labeling her as a partisan or as a Republican, so they know WIlton is better off running a fundamentally deceptive campaign.  

All in all, the poll is mostly good news for Beth Pearce and the Democrats. But it should also be a warning sign: Don’t take your foot off the gas between now and Election Day. Keep getting Pearce’s name out there however you can, don’t be afraid to associate her with the Democratic Party and health care reform, and keep up the pressure on Wilton. The more the voters know about her real record and intentions, the better it is for Pearce.  

When I wrote a couple of posts yesterday morning about Lenore Broughton, Wendy Wilton, and Vermonters First, I honestly thought it was a major story in the campaign. But as far as I can tell, there’s been nary a ripple in the Vermont media. So I’m gonna give it one more try, and this time I’ll start with the key points:

— In the past two weeks, Lenore Broughton’s Super PAC, Vermonters First, has spent over $108,000 in support of Wendy Wilton’s candidacy for Treasurer.

— Because of a quirk in state election law, we have no idea how much money VF spent on Wilton prior to October 8. But based on the ubiquity of its pro-Wilton ads, we can assume it was a hell of a lot.

— Broughton’s Super PAC has spent far more on Wilton than the candidate herself has. Probably five or six times as much. It’s unprecedented for a single individual to bankroll a single candidate in this fashion.

— If elected, Wendy Wilton will be directly beholden to Lenore Broughton in a way no other Vermont officeholder has ever been.

I hope that’s clear. Now, if you still think it’s not a story, I’ll go away quietly.

After the jump: I don’t go away quietly.

The thing that really surprised me about the lack of coverage is that this is the kind of story that usually gets reported ad nauseam: Vermont political media tends to cover every aspect of campaign finance reports and media buys. This one, not so much.

Not a whisper at VTDigger or the Vermont Press Bureau of VF’s latest $35,000 ad buy for Wilton, or the astounding total of $108,000 in two weeks.

The Freeploid covered the story in a fundamentally misleading, false-equivalency kind of way: the lead was not “Broughton spends big bucks to elect Wilton,” it was

A waterfall of money is pouring into purchases of television and radio advertising and mailings to influence the outcome of the race for state treasurer between Democrat Beth Pearce and Republican Wendy Wilton.

As if the “waterfall” was flowing equally on both sides. In fact, the Democrats are coming nowhere near the spending of Broughton and Vermonters First. The Freeploid also framed the story in terms of “money spent this week,” which omits the fact that Vermonters First spent an additional $30,000 on Wilton last week.

The ‘Loid also seems to have missed the fact that VF didn’t have to report expenditures for individual candidates before October 8. Its story says:

Vermonters First has now spent $108,512 on media buys to support Wilton’s candidacy, having plunked down $30,537 earlier this month on television advertising.

What it should say is, “Vermonters First is known to have spent at least $108,512 to support Wilton’s candidacy, but the actual total is clearly far higher than that.”

All these omissions serve to mask the one-sidedness of WIlton’s financial advantage.

As for my buddy Paul Heintz at Seven Days, he chose to shine a spotlight on an alleged case of political hypocrisy by the Democrats rather than write anything about Broughton’s onslaught.

I suppose that, after all his (rightly) critical coverage of Wendy Wilton’s outrageousness, it helps re-establish his journalistic bona fides to find some dirt on the Dems. But the story was vastly out of proportion, and not really news. Even the folks associated with Priorities PAC, the liberal Super PAC, have made it clear from the start that they’d like to see Super PACs put out of business but they feel compelled to, y’know, not walk unarmed into a gunfight.

But Governor Shumlin has stated his desire that Super PACs go away, and that individual candidates do their own fundraising and spending. And here’s his loyal second, Jeb Spaulding, voicing a pro-Beth Pearce ad funded by Priorities PAC.  

So Paul pounced. Aha! Hypocrisy!

Well, no.

Jeb saw his successor as Treasurer being inundated by a tsunami of Super Pac cash, and he does his bit to help. In accordance with the rules that exist. A vast array of Democratic officeholders, from President Obama on down, have expressed similar sentiments: they’d like to limit Super PACs, but as long as Super PACs are effectively unlimited, it’s best to get in the game. If you really think the Dems should voluntarily abide by the rules as they’d like them to be, and thus concede a huge advantage to the other side, well, then, you’re too pure for politics. And I think Paul’s former boss, the extremely well-financed Congressman Peter Welch, would agree with me.  

Another thing: Priorities PAC has spent a whopping $2,912 to air Spaulding’s ad. That’s a drop in the bucket compared to VF’s waterfall on behalf of Wilton. But no, the Dems’ hypocrisy was the big story of the day. So says Paul Heintz. Who is often, usually, one of our sharpest political journalists. Not this time.

I do appreciate the coverage given to Lenore Broughton and Vermonters First by Seven Days as well as Peter Hirschfeld at the Vermont Press Bureau. But the story continues to grow, and the coverage has not kept pace.  

Just a little Friday morning hate speech on WDEV’s Common Sense Radio today. Conservatives getting all outraged over alleged examples of liberals intimidating them in tactics that always seem to remind them of Nazi Germany.

Things like yard signs getting knocked over.

Yeah, just like Hitler.

It all started with a caller, John from Barre, complaining about a couple of yard-sign incidents and how some Republicans felt intimidated by it. Let’s make it clear, we’re not in favor of yard-sign despoliation by anyone. But as far as I know, these things happen from time to time on both sides. And in my experience driving around Vermont, I see plenty of Republican signs that have somehow survived this Holocaust of corrugated plastic. In fact, I’d say it’s about a 50-50 split. So I’m dubious that a cadre of Democratic hooligans is taking to the highways and byways at night and eliminating any hint of Republicanism. If they are, they’re doing a lousy job of it.

But anyway. It didn’t take long for John to roll out the Nazi comparisons. Brownshirts! Intimidation!

Your host, Rob Roper, whose specialty is saying outrageous things in a disingenuous tone of voice, gave John a couple minutes to rant and then went to a commercial break.

A few minutes later, a caller criticized Roper and his guest, Sleepy Bill Sayre, for failing to react to John’s comments. Whereupon Roper launched a truly idiotic defense of the whole idea that minor acts of vandalism are a precursor to Fascist rule.

He insisted that nobody’s talking about putting people into ovens. Gosh no. But the (alleged) vandalism of some yard signs — and the horrific incident of a few healthcare reform advocates (i.e. union thugs) briefly gathering in front of Lenore Broughton’s house* — are precursors of Nazism:  “The Brownshirts used intimidation tactics. If we don’t want the state to move into a Fascist place, we have to be vigilant.”

*Yep, they’re still beating that drum.

Just check your history books: Hitler’s rise to power began with  vandalizing Franz von Papen’s yard signs. And the Brownshirts were notorious for stopping by people’s houses and delivering notes.

Well, that and the Reichstag fire and Kristallnacht and all that other stuff. But vandalizing yard signs was definitely a crucial tactic in the Nazi playbook, f’sho. And anywhere a yard sign is under threat, so are our fundamental freedoms. Today a yard sign, tomorrow the world!

I don’t usually bother reporting the rhetorical excesses of Common Sense Radio, which are usually more laughable than anything. But this was particularly repellent. I’d just like to thank WDEV for letting this stuff come out of my radio five hours a week.

Oops, I shouldn’t have said that. Probably just made myself an honorary Brownshirt.  

Let’s say you’re part of a small but energetic movement. What’s the best way to gain new adherents and political credibility?

If you said, “divide in two,” DING DING DING.

We now have not one, but TWO faux-populist write-in campaigns for Governor.

The first is Annette Smith’s Gathering Of The Aggrieved, her write-in candidacy opposing wind power, the F-35s at Burlington Airport, “forced vaccinations,” EPA-mandated treatment of public drinking water, smart meters, “the school lunch program,” and, eh, whatever else ya got.

Now we have an anonymous drive encouraging voters to write in Peter Shumlin for Governor and Bernie Sanders for Senate. A few road signs have been spotted in Montpelier and Burlington, simply urging write-ins for Shumlin and Sanders without specifying why. Well, today I saw a flyer in downtown Montpelier that sheds more light on the mystery. The flyer reads as follows:

Write-in

Peter Shumlin  

Peter – Listen to us! No Ridge-Line Wind/NO F-35

I guess this is an appeal to those who are upset with Shumlin’s positions, but not quite upset enough to abandon his candidacy. Now there’s a fine distinction in keeping with the left’s long history of nitpicky sectarianism.

The flyer includes no contact info or other identifiers (which might be a violation of election law, if this were significant enough to warrant attention). Hand-written and then photocopied. Possibly coming soon to a billboard near you!

p.s. Yesterday, the Freeploid’s Terri Hallenbeck wrote a vtBuzz item about these signs, wondering why they were being posted. If the ‘Loid writes a follow-up, I do hope they credit GMD for the scoop. Like they usually don’t.

Things are getting desperate on the Republican side of the campaign. We’ve got Wendy Wilton swinging and missing — badly — on a particularly baseless charge against Beth Pearce; and Randy Brock wanting to rifle through the state’s files looking for anything he can use against Governor Shumlin.

First, Wilton. You may remember she was effectively blindsided in a debate on Monday, when Beth Pearce noted that Rutland had been returned to a bond-rating watch list. In June. WIlton’s unfortunate response: “That’s news to me.”

Need I remind you that WIlton is Rutland’s treasurer?

Well, apparently Wilton knew she’d been hit right where it hurts, because yesterday she made a lame attempt at the “I’m rubber, you’re glue” defense. She accused Pearce of disclosing private information that might harm Rutland’s fiscal reputation.

Problem, as VTDigger reports: the information ain’t private. It’s a freely-available public document, according to the rating organization, the Vermont Municipal Bond Bank.

And, as if to disprove her own point, Wilton then distributed the entire VMBB watch list to reporters. You know, that document she claimed was private, and damaging to the fiscal reputations of listed communities? At the same time, she claimed that Pearce should be held to a “higher standard” on such disclosure, and hinted at a formal complaint to the Securities and Exchange Commission.

After the jump: Wilton puts on her tinfoil hat, and Brock goes fishin’,

And as if that weren’t enough, she accused the VMBB Board of playing politics by putting Rutland on the watch list:

“The timeline here: I announced that I was running for state treasurer in the middle of May,” said Wilton. “And then come June, at the next Vermont Municipal Bond  Bank meeting, there’s this action: where the board, which includes several supporters of treasurer Pearce, and contributors to her campaign, makes a decision to develop this internal list, not shared with the communities affected…The whole thing seems rather coincidental in some way.”

Oh great, drag out the conspiracy theories. Yeah, Wendy, maybe ACORN was behind the rating. Or Keith Ellis. Or, I don’t know, Barack Obama’s real father. IN KENYA. Or maybe the entire Vermont financial structure is against Wilton because she’d be such a junkyard dog of a treasurer that they fear her ascendancy.

Desperate. Undignified. Thin-skinned. Flailing. It’s not a nice picture.

And now we have Randy Brock who, after months of fruitless attacks on Governor Shumlin’s Teflon shield, is still looking for an angle. At Wednesday’s Freeploid-sponsored debate, Brock ended the proceedings by pulling something out of thin air: accusing the Administration of spending thousands of dollars on confidential settlements with employees.

After the debate, Paul Heintz asked Brock what he was talking about, and Brock didn’t really have much of an answer.

Is there a particular incident you’re concerned about?

“I’m not prepared to say at this point,” he said.

Uh, this seems kind of random and out of the blue. What’s driving you to do this?

“It has been suggested to me that there are such payments that involve public money that would be important for the public to know about,” he explained.

… “Someone has certainly told me, but whether it’s true or not I have no idea,” he said. “Whether there’s anything there or not, I don’t know.

So, like Wendy Wilton, he’s not making charges — he’s just asking questions. Sad.

Undeterred by that shameful exchange, Brock doubled down on Thursday, demanding immediate and full transparency of something that might possibly exist but he doesn’t really know. And shotgun-filing a batch of public records requests for all relevant documents from the offices of five top state officials.

Which will be an expensive, time-consuming operation. But we shouldn’t worry about spending taxpayer dollars on a partisan fishing expedition, no sirree. Filing baseless complaints, asking loaded questions, and wasting everybody’s time: there’s your Republican strategery, 2012 style.

They don’t have any actual issues or traction with the voters, so they have to make shit up.