Vermont’s unofficial campaign season won’t begin for several more weeks. But a shadow campaign has been in full swing for months, contested by deep-pocketed groups that disclose little or nothing about themselves. Oh, they don’t call it campaigning; they call it “issue advocacy.” But they are clearly trying to influence public debate on some of the biggest issues facing Vermont.

The groups are:

— Bruce Lisman’s Campaign for Vermont (CFV), which promotes a variety of conservative issues.

— Vermonters for Health Care Freedom (VHCF), which opposes Governor Shumlin’s health care reform plan.

— Wake Up Opt Out (WU), which opposes the use of “smart meters” for residential utility customers.

— Energize Vermont (EV), which opposes large-scale wind power.

These groups can operate with little or no public disclosure. We don’t know where they get their money*, how much they’ve got, or how much they’re spending. They are regulated under IRS rules, not campaign finance law; their only reporting requirements are to the IRS, and that’s based on the tax year, not the campaign season. Which means that they won’t have to report anything about 2012 until April 2013, long after this year’s elections.

*With the exception of CFV; Lisman has volunteered that so far, he’s the sole source of its money. He won’t say how much he’s given or how it’s been spent. Ironic, for a guy who trumpets transparency as one of his core issues.

The four groups can be considered as two like-minded pairs.  

1. Campaign for Vermont and Vermonters for Health Care Freedom.

Both are 501c4’s, “social welfare organizations” under IRS rules. Contributions are not tax-deductible*. They are allowed to engage in some political activities, but that is not meant to be their primary focus.

*Due to my own misreading of IRS regs, I previously wrote that Lisman was getting a tax deduction on donations to his own group. He is not. I apologize for the error.

These groups are spending heavily, promoting key Republican issues well in advance of of campaign season. According to Andy Bromage in Seven Days, Lisman’s CFV has been running 10-12 commercials per day for three months on Vermont’s two biggest news/talk stations — WVMT-AM in Colchester and WDEV-FM/AM in Waterbury. WDEV’s Eric Michaels told Bromage the ad buys are very unusual.

It’s not uncommon for advocacy groups to buy up huge blocks of airtime in the days or weeks ahead of a controversial vote, such as same-sex marriage or Vermont Yankee, Michaels says. What’s different about Campaign for Vermont, he says, is how sustained it is, stretching uninterrupted over a period of months.

VHCF is making its own extensive buys on radio and television; this alleged “social welfare organization” acting as a stalking horse for Randy Brock’s gubernatorial campaign, which is certain to make health care reform its primary issue. It’s purely coincidence, we’re sure, that VHCF founder Darcie Johnston is a longtime Brock adviser and recently left VHCF to take a role in Brock’s campaign.

Political analyst (and Vermont Pundit Laureate) Eric Davis, speaking recently on WDEV’s Mark Johnson Show, said he expects CFV and VHCF to “come as close to the line as they possibly can, and a lot of Randy Brock’s message will come from those groups.” And, “as long as they don’t actually say the words ‘Vote for Randy Brock,’ it’s legal.”

It’s also legal for them to fundraise in secret, a fact touted by Jeff Wennberg, the new head of VHCF, according to the Vermont Press Bureau:  

Would-be donors worried about being outed as single-payer opponents need not worry.   Since VHCF is a 501(c)(4) nonprofit, Wennberg says, “there is no limit on the amount an individual or corporation can contribute and all donations are kept confidential by law.”

Some have called for disclosure requirements on 501c4s. This would certainly be one way to shine some light on this very dark, and growing, area of political activity. But some argue against such requirements. Why? Try this example.  Let’s say you’re an employee at Vermont Yankee who supports the Sierra Club, a 501c4. You might highly value the ability to conceal your support from your employer.

Opponents of disclosure say there’s a simpler way: enforce current IRS regulations. In recent years, some 501c4s have gone very overtly into politics, in ways that should imperil their status. They may be about to experience some pushback.

…the IRS has sent detailed questionnaires to several Tea Party organizations — and possibly other political groups — to determine if they truly qualify for the 501c4 designation intended for groups whose exclusive purpose is to promote social welfare.

…The tax code requires 501c4 groups to be operated “exclusive” for social welfare purposes – -which does not include intervention in political campaigns. The IRS has allowed the groups to engage in political activity as long as it was not therir primary purpose. But for many of these groups, it’s hard to see what other purpose they could possibly have.

If the IRS enforced the rules, the political 501c4s would have to change direction or convert to 527 status, which allows political activity but does require disclosure.

In the meantime, though, we have two 501c4’s engaging in extensive political activity.  While we await possible IRS action — and it’s already getting a lot of partisan blowback for “harassing” conservative groups, which is likely to discourage any real crackdown — CFV and VHCF are playing significant roles in bolstering the Vermont Republican Party.  

One more thing. Plans are afoot for another Vermont-based 501c4, this one promoting a left/progressive agenda — a liberal alternative to CFV, you might say. As a c4, it would be operate without disclosure of funding or expenditures, except under IRS rules. That’s about all we can tell you right now, except to note that certain domain names have already been registered and a rudimentary website established. Expect more details in the near future.

2. Energize Vermont and Wake Up Opt Out.

EV is a 501c3, a charitable organization. Donations are tax-deductible. 501c3s are allowed to do a limited amount of lobbying and issue advocacy, but their primary efforts should be charitable. 501c3s, like c4s, are subject to IRS reporting requirements, not campaign rules and laws.

WU is neither, according to its campaign manager Jesse Mayhew. He describes it as a “nascent organization” that doesn’t yet have a structure. But in spite of its “nascent” status, it has mounted an extensive advertising and advocacy campaign against smart meters. Mayhew says that 100% of its funding comes from within Vermont, but will say no more. And Mayhew’s is the only name publicly associated with the group; he’s unwilling to provide other names or even a membership count. (EV does list eight Vermonters on its governing board; all are from the Rutland area near the site of the proposed Ira wind farm, which was tabled in 2010.)

These groups have many things in common.

1. They both oppose “green” energy projects: large-scale wind power and smart meters.

2. Both have made significant strides in advancing their viewpoints. On Town Meeting Day, several communities approved resolutions opposed to smart meters. EV has been a significant player in developing opposition to large-scale wind projects.

3. Both have managed to create significant splits in the left/enviro community. Which is an accomplishment that any pro-industry group would envy.

4. Both claim to be grassroots Vermont organizations, but both are headed by Massachusetts PR consultants who are partners in the same communications firm: Mayhew of WU and Lukas Snelling of EV. Their firm specializes in “green” image-building for corporations.

5.  Neither discloses any information about funding or expenditures.

6. Because of this lack of disclosure, it’s difficult to evaluate their arguments. Some of their reasoning strikes me as plausible; some, frankly, does not. (One example: WU’s contention that smart meters are vulnerable to “data hacking.” Smart meters produce a single data point: how much electricity is being used at a given moment. It’s hard to see how that would be worth a hacker’s time.)

Both groups have their experts and scientific studies; but these days, everybody does. Even creationists and global-warming deniers. I can’t prove that these groups are using bad science, but when they don’t disclose anything about their funding, I have trouble taking their assertions at face value — especially when some arguments seem dubious at best.

A final note.

I’m not trying to depict all four of these groups as entirely — or equally — malevolent. But they all share a common modus operandi: assuming sizable roles in political discourse while operating with an almost complete lack of transparency. This strikes me as fundamentally bad for democracy.

Coming soon to this space… another look at money in our politics: Vermont’s outdated, inadequate campaign disclosure laws.

Montpelier’s own Bo Muller-Moore, creator of “Eat More Kale,” has two reasons to celebrate today.

First, the big one: His Kickstarter campaign has reached its goal, raising $75,000 to produce a documentary about his trademark fight with Chick-Fil-A. The corporate giant claims copyright for any usage of the phrase “Eat More” (or in their case, “Eat Mor”) and are trying to force Bo out of business.

Second, his cause has caught the attention of The Economist, which has done a pro-Bo, anti-CFA writeup. A couple of passages after the jump…  

Chick-Fil-A sells an average of nine sandwiches per second at its roughly 1,600 restaurants. Bo Muller-Moore paints T-shirts in the garage next to his house in Montpelier, Vermont. In 2011 Chick-fil-A’s sales were more than $4 billion; Mr Muller-Moore (pictured) estimates that his were $40,000.

Nonetheless, the slogan screened on his shirts-“Eat More Kale”, initially made in 2001 as a favour for a local farmer, whose kale crop had a bumper year-caught the humourless eyes of Chick-fil-A’s lawyers.

…Chick-fil-A insists it has to protect its trademark. But its idea of self-defence looks to others like bullying. The firm is protecting its trademark not from a crafty restaurateur hoping to piggyback on its fame, but from a kale farmer and a “Neolithic stencil-artist” in Vermont.

The article also references Rock Art Brewery’s tussle with the corporate maker of Monster energy drinks. Worth reading.

Anyway, congratulations to Bo Muller-Moore. We suggest the occasion be celebrated with a bottle of Rock Art Vermonster.

Late yesterday we learned that Mike Bertrand had quit as Executive Director of the Vermont Republican Party after a mere five months on the job, and that for three of those five months, he apparently wasn’t paid because the party’s coffers were empty.  

This prompted some reflection in GMD-land, a hearkening back to past predictions of a bleak future for the post-Jim Douglas VT GOP. In January 2011, when the party had (a) just lost the governorship and (b) completely missed a huge national Republican tidal wave, one of us wrote these words:

The Vermont Republican Party is in as bad shape as any major political party I’ve seen. There’re no two ways about it.  

… It was through Dougla’s single-minded interest in his own re-election that the Vermont Republican Party withered under his watch, as it gave little support to legislative Republicans and candidates.

After the jump: Warnings against Democratic complacency, and portents of an ugly new VTGOP.

Last fall, GMD saw Bertrand’s hiring as a recycle, an echo back to Douglas days rather than a step into a new Republican future. And now that he’s left the building, the VT GOP is in the hands of Jack Lindley — a recycle, not to Jim Douglas, but to the days of Bob Stafford. Good grief.  

In October 2010, in a GMD diary naming “up and coming Republican stars,” the first name was Phil Scott. Okay there. But after that? Jason Gibbs, former Douglas flack who was about to lose the race for Secretary of State by almost ten percentage points. Gibbs is now the flack for Ski Vermont, where he is, I’m sure, trying not to think of global warming while casting a weary glance at our sun-baked slopes.  

Also mentioned was Michael Dubie, who’s made no visible move toward politics so far.  All of this makes a 2007 GMD diary sound even more prescient:

Under the guidance of recently departed Chair Jim Barnett, the Republican legislative races were allowed to dry up and blow away while all attention and energy was spent protecting Governor Douglas and pushing some of the other, big ticket statewide races. The result is a dearth of talent in the short term, and few rising stars on the horizon.

Which is at least as true today as it was then. For all his own electoral success, Jim Douglas was a failure at building a party. A year and a half after his exit, its coffers are empty, its leadership is aging, and its statewide ticket is likely to be filled with retreads and no-hopers.  

So, it’s all good for the Democrats, right?   Well, no. I see three things to worry about.  

First: the natural tendency to get complacent. The Dems dominate state government and our Congressional delegation. That kind of success tends to foster laziness at best and corruption at worst. So far, the top Dems have seemingly done a good job of, well, doing their jobs, and making government work.  

The second concern: that Governor Shumlin will echo Jim Douglas’ failure to build his party. GMD, January 2011:  

Shumlin could easily fall into that trap, and the Vermont Democratic Party could atrophy if it becomes exclusively tasked to his re-election. If so, that too could change the playing field. For my money, though, I’m betting Shumlin is too smart to give into that impulse.

Let’s hope. And the third concern: if the VTGOP is an “empty shell” at the start of a campaign season, then others will fill the vacuum. The high-profile advocacy groups Campaign for Vermont and Vermonters for Health Care Freedom are far more active, and much better financed, than the Vermont Republican Party or its (retread) candidate for Governor, Randy Brock.  

The Dick Snelling/Jim Jeffords Republican Party is long gone. It’s obvious that the Jim Douglas “smiley face conservative” GOP is on life support at best. The door is wide open for an influx of corporate cash (into those independent groups if not the party itself), which could create a new VTGOP in the Fox/Rove/Koch model of expensive, dogmatic Mortal Kombat.

It’s unclear how well such a party would fare in traditionally moderate Vermont, but it would certainly have a lot of money in its corner, and it would certainly make our politics a whole lot meaner and nastier.  

Here’s some news you don’t want to see when you’re heading into campaign season.  Vermont Press Bureau:  

Mike Bertrand ended his short stint as executive director of the Vermont Republican Party last week, departing the post to dedicate more time to his private consulting business.

Bertrand had been on the job for not quite five months, having taken over for Pat McDonald last November. His departure leaves the newly-ensconced VTGOP Chair Jack Lindley with a big vacancy to fill.  

Er, make that two vacancies: one in the office, one in the bank.    

Bertrand hadn’t been paid since the beginning of the year, according to GOP Chairman Jack Lindley.

Oooh, awkward.  

An ebb in fundraising, Lindley said, has temporarily sapped the party’s accounts. Lindley said he intends to deliver Bertrand his back pay, though Bertrand said it really isn’t a big deal.

“An ebb in fundraising” in an election year??? Wow. And here I thought the Republicans were the party of the wealthy.    

(Bunched Knicker Syndrome, the hot new political disease of 2012. BKS Fever… catch it!)

Dear oh dear. House Republicans are in a flutter because Governor Shumlin dared to show his face in “their” chamber during a session. Via VTDigger…

Last month, Gov. Peter Shumlin, a former representative and senator, sidestepped the usual form and took a seat in one of the plush red velvet-covered Senate chairs behind the House podium. The circumstance? The governor was making the rounds at the Statehouse with Thomas Sullivan, the new president of the University of Vermont, who was introduced to the General Assembly.

The governor didn’t speak or draw attention to himself, but his very presence was duly noted by Republicans who say Shumlin breached protocol by entering the chamber while the House was in session.

Apparently the presence of The Great Man™ was unnerving to the assembled throng. They were unable to concentrate on the People’s Business™ due to the waves of charisma emanating from Governor Shumlin. Or maybe they feared he was planning to pass orders to Shap via secret hand-signals, which would be a clear violation of protocol. Or something.  

(For those unfamiliar with the State House, the chairs behind the Speaker’s podium are open to the public whenever they’re not occupied by the State Senate. It’s equivalent to sitting in the gallery.)

After the jump: Hurt fee-fees as political tactic.

Rep. Tom Koch, a Republican member from Barre who has served in the House since 1997, called it a “symbolic type of thing.”

“When he’s at work, we don’t go marching into his office,” Koch said. “I don’t want to make a big stink about it, but it’s technically not proper.”

You don’t want to make a big stink about it, eh? Then what are you aiming for here, a mid-sized stink? Fart in an elevator? A passing whiff of perfume?

Oh, another thing: the Governor’s office doesn’t have public seating. So your comparison is, well, completely off base.

But for the sake of fairness, let’s take this to the impartial adjudicator.

Donald Milne, Clerk of the House, says the governor’s presence in the House was unusual, but not inappropriate. The Senate seats in the House, he said, are open to the public – and the governor is a member of the public.

Gov. James Douglas appeared in the gallery several times over the course of his tenure in office, Milne recalled.

Well, then. Never mind!

Looks like we have a developing epidemic of BKS on the Republican side. They made a big fuss over Democratic texting in a recent health-care debate. And, of course, they’re in the habit of putting out press releases castigating the Governor whenever he goes on vacation. Which, as we all know, Republicans never do.

(Well, yeah, George W. Bush set the all-time record for executive vacations… but he was doin’ manly stuff, like bike-ridin’ and brush-clearin’. And yeah, he broke the record set by Ronald Reagan, but Ronnie was on his ranch, ridin’ horses and looking’ all John Wayne-y. That’s an Amurrican vacation, dangit. Not like Shumlin idling away on some foreign beach, prob’ly wearin’ a lavender Speedo.)

(Oops, I think I just started a rumor there.)

National Republicans make a habit of this — slamming Democrats for any perceived slight or shortcoming no matter how irrelevant. Guess we’ll be getting more of the same from Vermont Republicans. Another sign that the formerly moderate VTGOP has adopted the Fox News/Karl Rove playbook.

(As previously defined: Bunched Knicker Syndrome.)

Apparently Jeff Wennberg went shopping at Costco, brought home a giant industrial-sized can of hyperbole, and scooped out a heaping helping over at one of the Ground Zeroes of the B.K.S. epidemic in our state: Vermont Tiger.

(In fact, I think the Tiggers buy their underwear pre-bunched. It’s a lot easier to work up a good fit of outrage when you’re really, really uncomfortable.)

So Jeff, having recently taken the reins of Vermonters for Health Care Freedom from Darcie Johnston, suddenly feels himself besieged on all sides by the forces of anarcho-Islamo-socialism.

The onslaught begins… after the jump.  

Apparently Vermonters for Health Care Freedom (VHCF) is making progress. The fury and frequency of attacks leveled against the organization from advocates of the single-payer takeover of Vermont’s health care system have reached a fever pitch.

Fury! Fever pitch! Yeah, I drove through Montpelier earlier today and saw blood running through the streets. Now I know why: Jeff Wennberg was under furious, feverish attack. Sadly, it’s the price he must pay for “making progress.” Osama Bin Laden didn’t bother attacking Costa Rica or Belgium; he came after the big dog, the U.S. of A. Likewise, the minions of Socialist Medicine have naturally trained their fire on the biggest threat to their subjugation of the American Health Care System: Jeff Wennberg.

Single payer zealots seem most offended by the use of the word “freedom” in the organization’s name.

Zealots! Yep, Al Qaeda is on board with Governor Shumlin’s reform plan.

Speaking personally, Jeff, I don’t mind if you use the word “freedom.” Nobody, thank God, has a copyright on it. Actually, what’s more objectionable is when Darcie held that “health care forum” a few weeks ago in Lyndonville, and it was billed as a dispassionate informational session organized by “Vermonters for Health Care Reform.” Now, that was truly disagreeable. Misleading. Mendacious. A big fat lie. I’d rather you just stick to “Freedom,” thanks.

In fact, at least one of the single payer advocates is so incensed he has publicly called for media outlets to refuse to carry VHCF’s paid messages. Apparently nothing protects freedom like censorship.

“At least one.” Uh, Jeff, that’s a far cry from a furious horde.

Oh, and you might want to look up “censorship” in your favorite dictionary. Censorship has to be done by someone in a position of authority. Your critics and opponents can call for all sorts of things; but by definition, they cannot “censor” you.

Look, Jeff, you’ve signed on as head of the biggest anti-health care reform advocacy group in Vermont. That’s a very visible position. You’re going to attract a lot of attention. And, roughly speaking, half of it is going to be negative. That’s not furious, feverish attack; that’s the nature of the political game that you’re now playing. Get used to it, or get out.  

(Er… Bunched Knicker Syndrome)

Crossover Week has come and gone at the State House, but supporters of a bill that would allow child-care workers to unionize are still pushing their case. And still pushing a bit too hard for the tender sensibilities of John Campbell, President Pro Tem of the State Senate. He’s been blocking the bill throughout the current session because he thinks its backers are overly aggressive.

The latest, according to Terri Hallenbeck on the Freeps’ politics blog, vtBuzz:

Union activists are still pressuring Campbell for a vote on a bill that would allow child-care workers to unionize and be a player in negotiating child-care subsidies that parents receive from the state.

Andrew Tripp, executive director of the Vermont American Federation of Teachers, was quoted Saturday in the Times Argus linking Campbell to Scott Walker, the anti-union governor of Wisconsin.
”That’s an attitude that puts him more in line with what we have in Wisconsin with the Scott Walker administration,” Tripp said.

Ruh-roh.  

Well, that little remark put another twist in Campbell’s shorts.

Campbell fired back Tuesday: “Andy Tripp should do more research before he says things like that and realize that strong-arm tactics, intimidation and misrepresentation is not acceptable in Vermont,” he said. Campbell noted that he was the sponsor of a resolution supporting workers in Wisconsin in their fight against Walker.

Oh, that’s impressive. A resolution! Puts one in mind of Sir Arthur Streeb-Greebling:

Interviewer: How long ago did you start this venture?

ASG: Tricky to say. Certainly within living memory. It was shortly after World War Two. Do you remember that? Absolutely ghastly business. I was against the whole thing!

Interviewer: I think we all were.

ASG: Yes, well, I wrote a letter.

As has been said before in these pages, the unions have been more aggressive in their lobbying than they perhaps should have been — at least by Vermont’s prickly standards. But for Campbell to get so bothered that he derails a good bill… well, that’s poor politics and poor leadership. And lest you think I’m exaggerating about Campbell’s reasoning, he said so himself to Vermont Digger in early February:

“The reason why I believe this bill does not have the right to go forward is the tactics used to intimidate myself and this body are so against what good clean government is about, I think it would be rewarding bad behavior,” Campbell said.

The “tactics used to intimidate myself and this body” (note who comes first on that list) consisted of a union chief showing Campbell a list of union donations to Democratic Senators and implying it was time for a quid pro quo. And his idea of “strong-arm tactics” is an easily misconstrued quote from another union official. Heaven forbid he should ever be subject to actual intimidation or strong-arming; that’d be a rude shock for someone who’s apparently well insulated from the rougher edges of life.  

You know what I think? If the Senate fails to take action on this bill, then they are rewarding John Campbell’s bad behavior.

The University of Vermont has heard and rejected protests from two faculty groups over the broadcast of UVM sports on WVMT-AM, the Burlington home of Rush Limbaugh. The Faculty Senate and Faculty Women’s Caucus had asked Interim President John Bramley to break UVM’s contract with the station and seek another broadcast outlet. In his response, Bramley made a fundamentally spurious argument.

“We are a university and believe that the protection of free speech, however controversial or offensive, is important,” Bramley wrote.

“Indeed free speech and the right to express controversial ideas is the very basis of the tenure enjoyed by many of the faculty who are making the proposal,” Bramley wrote.

Free speech is a foundational principle of our society and of academia. But free speech has nothing whatsoever to do with this case. Rush Limbaugh has a constitutional right to freedom of speech, but he has no right to be broadcast on WVMT in Burlington. Nor does he have a right to be associated with University of Vermont sports.

No more than Ben Stein had a constitutional right to be UVM’s commencement speaker.  

After the jump: One simple step John Bramley could take RIGHT NOW.

Bramley’s argument is wrong. UVM is not supporting the free speech rights of Limbaugh or anyone else. The UVM deal takes money away from WVMT, which arguably weakens Limbaugh’s platform. The only way UVM is fostering Limbaugh’s freedom to be a misogynist is by associating itself with Limbaugh’s broadcast outlet, thus lending him a bit of second-hand credibility.

There are better arguments Bramley could have made. “We can’t break the contract” is an old stand-by, tough to argue with. “Lack of suitable alternatives” would carry quite a bit of weight; WVMT is the primary talk station in the Burlington market. Many popular stations wouldn’t want to disrupt their schedules to carry sports broadcasts that probably don’t draw much of an audience. Any stations willing to carry UVM sports might have marginal signals, or might not be willing to match WVMT’s price.

But those are practical arguments, not high-minded academic ones. The appeal to free speech sounds more Presidential. It just happens to be false.

If Bramley is unwilling to end the association with Limbaugh’s enabler, he should definitely ask WVMT to avoid airing promos for UVM sports during Limbaugh’s program. This is a simple thing to ask. And it would at least remove any direct, obvious tie between UVM and Limbaugh. Here in central Vermont, WSNO has been carrying delightfully few paid advertisements during Limbaugh, and filling the time with station promos — for other programs, and for WSNO sportscasts.

If the same thing is happening on WVMT, they may be airing a lot of UVM promos during Limbaugh. That would be bad for UVM’s image, and Bramley should take steps to prevent it.

One other thing he should do: get himself one of those pocket Constitutions, and read the frickin’ First Amendment.  

Awwww. Sad tidings from the Vermont Press Bureau:

We told you last week about a former Douglas staffer considering a run for statewide office. Kevin Dorn now tells us he’s opted against a candidacy of any kind this year.

Dorn had been bruited as a potential Republican challenger to Bernie Sanders. To which we responded with our usual tasteful sarcasm. Hope we didn’t deter Mr. Dorn.

Well, we greeted the news of his possible candidacy with a pheromonal blast of Bonnie Tyler. We mourn his departure with the downbeat echoes of the Flaming Lips:

Tell everyone waiting for Superman

That they should hold on as best they can

He hasn’t dropped them, forgot them, or anything

It’s just too heavy for Superman to lift

Hot on the heels of Monday’s announcement that Chittenden County State’s Attorney TJ Donovan will challenge incumbent Attorney General Bill Sorrell in the Democratic primary, comes the first open rumbling from another rumored challenger: House Speaker Shap Smith. Both VTDigger and the Burlington Free Press have received the same e-mail from Smith:

“A number of people have encouraged me to run for Attorney General,” Smith wrote in an email Monday evening. “I’m giving it careful consideration, and I will be making a decision soon.”

The Freeps also has Sorrell talking up child pornography as a key issue. This may well be a big problem, but I wonder if (a) it’s really the biggest unmet legal challenge in Vermont, and (b) it isn’t a stereotypical tough-talking chest-pounding sort of issue for an AG candidate.

(Could also lead to interesting debates, since Sorrell differs with the State’s Attorneys on how to tackle the problem. They want more computer experts, he wants more regular staff. Even though he acknowledges a huge backlog of computer forensic work in child-porn investigations.)

And hey, the frequently ethically challenged Vince Illuzzi is still out there, too. Still hasn’t made up his mind.

“I’m still leaning toward running,” Illuzzi said Monday in an interview with the Burlington Free Press. “A number of people have asked me to consider running as an independent.”

I trust that it’s not the same “number of people” talking to both Shap and Vince. That’d be awkward.