Something happened last Wednesday that should have been a big news story, but it wasn’t. I was out of town so it took me some time to catch up, but you know, I felt pretty secure in thinking that I wouldn’t be scooped by anyone in our sadly depleted media ecosystem. Good for me, bad for the public interest, but here we are.
What I’m talking about is a costly, potentially catastrophic situation involving one of the Scott administration’s information technology initiatives.In brief, this project is badly over budget and way behind schedule. There are huge potential risks, known and unknown. Nobody knows how much the thing will cost, how long it would take to complete the work — or if that is even possible. This includes the boffins at Gov. Phil Scott’s much-touted innovation, the Agency of Digital Services.
Have I got your attention?
Here’s something else. The quote in the title came from Republican Sen. David Weeks of Rutland, a political ally of the governor. He knows whereof he speaks; according to his official bio, his career involved “high-level program management positions in the defense and security sectors” involving “high technology operations and project management in the $3 billion range.”
In other words, Weeks may have more experience in IT-related management than anyone at ADS. And he was appalled at what he heard in a July 29 legislative hearing.
If this wasn’t reported as an in-kind donation to the Bram Kranichfeld campaign, it’s only because the dollars-and-cents value was incalculable. Last week, out of nowhere, and without extending the courtesy of informing the mayor of Vermont’s largest and most important city, the Scott administration dispatched the Vermont State Police to patrol the allegedly mean streets of Burlington.
Scott spokesperson Amanda Wheeler had the unmitigated gall to provide this comment to VTDigger: “This is nothing more than the Governor wanting to make sure Burlington is safe for residents and visitors, despite others framing this as a political issue.”
Oh, come ON. Don’t piss on my leg and tell me it’s raining.
As is often the case, the governor is the one who’s playing politics and, like a certain orange-skinned chief executive, accusing his political rivals of the very thing he’s engaging in. I think they call that “deflection.”
In case you think I’m exaggerating, let’s look at the course of events.
This is a screenshot of an ad that’s been circulating on behalf of Democratic gubernatorial candidate Aly Richards. But it didn’t come from her campaign; it was paid for by the (apparently) newborn Independent Expenditure PAC known as “Time for a Change.”
IE-PACs, for those just tuning in, can spend on behalf of favored candidates but can’t coordinate their activities with anyone’s campaign. And this one has a bucket of money to spend by Vermont standards— although it’s getting in gear awfully late in the game.
As of the July 1 reporting deadline, TFAC was in the Secretary of State’s campaign finance system but had yet to raise or spend a single dime. Its August 1 report is a different kettle of fish altogether. TFAC reported raising $230,025 in a single month. The bulk of the total, a flat $200,000, was donated by businesses, not individuals. What’s more, $225,000 came from out of state. Only $5,025 was donated to TFAC by Vermonters. Are anyone else’s hackles raised a little bit, or is it just me?
In its August 1 campaign finance filing, TFAC only reported spending $8,500 (to D.C.-based Liftoff Campaigns LLC for “Media – Consulting”), but that doesn’t tell the story. It has also filed FOUR separate Mass Media filings in the last three days, none of which are reflected in its August 1 report. TFAC sent $50,000 to D.C.-based Middle Seat for online ad buys; another $60,000 to Liftoff Campaigns for “text messaging”; $35,000 to Liftoff for “Online Advertising”; and another $56,500 to Liftoff for more “online advertising.” That’s a total spend of $210,000 in a matter of days!
While us campaign finance sickos breathlessly await the August 1 filing deadline, we can occupy a bit of our time by tracking the mass media buys reported since July 1. There are quite a few, in fact.
Explainer for those who need it: Whenever a candidate spends $500 or more on mass media (radio, TV, digital ads, printing, mailing, etc.), they must report it to the Secretary of State’s office within a couple of days, a rule often honored more in the breach than the observance.
Can you guess where the most money was spent on mass media this month? That’s right, it’s the Democratic race for lieutenant governor by a country mile. Ryan Mclaren, last seen trailing badly in the polls, poured $125,100 into TV ad buys conducted by Georgia-based Canal Partners Media. Apparent front-runner Molly Gray has spent $112,918 on TV ad buys done by Virginia-based Screen Strategies Media and another $26,537 on postcard mailings by Berlin Rosen LLC of New York for a grand total of $168,135.
Couldn’t help noticing as I scanned all these reports that virtually all statewide candidates and some legislative hopefuls are contracting their printing and media buys out of state. I guess the big firms know what they’re doing, but home cooking seems to be a thing of the past.
Anyway, McLaren and Gray have combined to spend almost $300,000 on a non-gubernatorial primary election. That’s got to be an all-time record. If it’s not, make sure to let me know in the Comments.
Whatever, it’s a fuck-ton of money for a bucket of warm piss, and a further indication that incumbent Republican John Rodgers is extremely vulnerable; both Democrats must feel like the primary is their biggest hurdle.
I guess Andrea Murray wasn’t discouraged by a state Senate campaign that, in the Republican wave year of 2024, saw her finish a distant fourth in the deep-blue Windsor district — and blow a big hole in her family’s bank account because she lavishly self-funded her own campaign. Much of her money was spent on two different out-of-state consultancies that shamelessly ripped her off did her no favors at all. Her investment paid the tiniest of dividends; she finished less than two percentage points ahead of two Republicans who barely campaigned at all. (The above screenshot was taken from a two-minute campaign video lavishly produced by one of those consultancies.)
Also, she regularly and wildly flouted campaign finance reporting laws, a practice she has carried forward into 2026. As noted previously, she missed the March 15 and July 1 deadlines despite spending at least some money on Vermont Daily Chronicle ads, a wasteful practice since the vast majority of VDC readers live outside Windsor County. One could argue that the ads could connect her to the wider conservative donor class, except she has yet to attract more than a handful of donors outside her own pocket.
Well, folks, on July 26 she filed both of this year’s reports at once plus the report that was due on July 1 of last year. And there are only five days to go before the next deadline. Great. We’ll probably see her August 1 report sometime in October. Too bad there are no penalties for late filing, thanks to the Legislature’s self-dealing on campaign finance issues.
Anyway, a look at her latest reports shows that she’s not doing anything different from two years ago. Still running in a district that hasn’t elected a Republican to the state Senate since 1994, still pouring her own money into a certain-to-lose campaign, still attracting little money from the rest of the human race.
I received this in the form of a comment on my recent post about Brenda Siegel. I don’t have time to dig into this right now, but it seems very timely so I’m elevating it for your consideration. I will say, this kind of thing would be absolutely in line with Scott administration policy on homelessness. They have consistently fought to minimize cost with no particular concern for the human toll wreaked on the unsheltered. Act 143 seemed like a pretty good idea for a new emergency housing program; I would not be surprised in the least if the administration is trying to undercut it.
Dear John —
Today is the final day for public comments on DCF’s draft rules on Act 143. I don’t know if you have seen the ACLU’s take on these rules, but they rules essentially ignore both the letter and spirit of the law, regardless of what the legislature passed and the governor signed. They are essentially negating the law and creating their own program. …The DCF gave only a week for public comment so advocates are scrambling to meet today’s deadline.
Back in 2021, global currency trader Paul Belogour purchased three long-established Vermont newspapers: The Manchester Journal, The Bennington Banner, and The Brattleboro Reformer. It was part of a Brattleboro-area property buying spree by the mullet-haired skillionaire. At the time I noted that it could be a very good thing to be owned a rich guy who could prop up the struggling papers — or a very bad thing because rich-guy owners (See Also: Bezos, Jeff) can be inconsistent stewards with no concept of journalistic ethics. And Belougour’s homeland, Belarus, was dubbed by Reporters Without Borders “the most dangerous country in Europe for media personnel.” That’s saying something, since Putin’s Russia is right next door.
For the most part, things have seemed… okay at the three papers. The paper has published the occasional op-ed or letter from Belogour, mainly parroting Putin’s worldview on European affairs and alleged corruption in Ukraine. But he hasn’t meddled too much in the newsroom as far as I can tell.
Until now.
The above LinkedIn profile lists Alexander Belogour as a “correspondent” for the papers’ corporation, Vermont News & Media. Yes, he’s the owner’s son. And he is a devout Catholic who seems to be part of a national movement toward Catholicism among MAGA men, up to and including Trumpian red-ragger Steve Bannon and Vice President J.D. Vance. Young Belogour is a student at Franciscan University of Steubenville (Ohio), founded in 1946 to cash in on the postwar education boom fueled by the GI Bill (as were many other upstart institutions). Franciscan U was characterized in a 1998 National Catholic Reporter piece as “a sleepy regional college” transformed into an epicenter of conservative Charismatic Catholicism in the late 90s. Enrollment has more than doubled since then.
(The NCR also noted how Franciscan U has infected the culture of the entire city, which should serve as a warning to Poultney, former home of Green Mountain College and possible future home of a university run by a Florida-based evangelist.)
Well, Young Belogour has been spending his summer away from campus as a very busy reporter for his dad’s newspapers. To put it kindly, that’s a mixed blessing. And a troubling portent.
After months of essentially ignoring the contested statewide primary races, our media outlets are suddenly starting to pay attention. It’s as if somebody glanced at a calendar and realized the primary is less than three weeks away, wow, we’d better get on the stick.
I mean, a story posted this week by Vermont Public termed the primary “sleepy,” to which I say, well, whose fault is that? The Democratic candidates for governor and lieutenant governor have been working their asses off, traveling around the state, speaking to anyone who will invite them, and fundraising at a robust pace. They’ve been doing their part; it’s the media that have, until now, made this a “sleepy” primary by paying it little attention.
Enough ranting, let’s get to business. The University of New Hampshire Research Center has published another poll on Vermont politics, and the basic throughline is a gradual cementing of previously seen trends. But there are some notable results, such as a drop below 50% approval for our legendarily popular Gov. Phil Scott. In a June survey, Scott had fallen from his accustomed perch in the low to mid 60s down to 51%. (He was at 60% as recently as last fall.) Now he’s at 48%, with 43% disapproving and 8% expressing no opinion. What’s more, the ranks of the “Strongly” disapproving rose from 15% to 20%. Fresh dents in the Teflon?
There’s more in the gubernatorial numbers but first I want to hit the LG results, which show incumbent Republican John Rodgers in serious trouble. In hypothetical matchups, Rodgers loses to any of the three Democrats in the race — including Esther Charlestin. And he seems to be falling further behind. Another thing: on the gambling racket prediction marketplace Kalshi, for what it’s worth, 71% of the wagers are on the Democrats taking back the ol’ bucket of warm piss. (Fascinating Kalshi note: “Republican” held a 60-40 edge until July 3, when “Republican” took a sudden plunge and “Democrat” surged. The market has stayed essentially the same since then.) (Humbling Kalshi note: Bets on the LG race total less than $14,000, while bets on “LeBron James Next Team” are more than $214,000,000.)
Update! Apparently the governor’s office did issue a statement slamming the tariffs. How Digger ignored it, I have no idea.
Update to the update! I got the timing wrong on the Digger story’s publication and Scott issuing a statement. Details below.
Following Donald Trump’s precipitous announcement of 50% tariffs on a variety of Canadian goods, VTDigger reporter Theo Wells-Spackman was tasked with chronicling the potential economic harm to our state, which is heavily dependent on cross-border trade and tourism. In the process, he gathered reactions from various Vermont officials. He did a decent job of it, but there was one notable and unexplained absence from the piece.
I’ll give you three guesses, and the first two don’t count.
The officials who made appearances in the story included, in this order, state economist Tom Kavet (who called Trump’s move “pure stupidity”), Treasurer Mike Pieciak, Amy Magnus of Vermont-based customs broker A.N. Deringer (the tariffs are “downright shocking”), and U.S. Sen. Peter Welch (Trump’s policy has “caused undeniable harm” and “economic chaos”).
A nice list. But who’s not there? Who’s conspicuous by their absence?
Why, our fearless, resolute Governor Phil Scott, that’s who. He was not quoted, nor was anyone from his administration. Wells-Spackman did not reveal whether he sought reaction from Scott or his minions. If he didn’t, well, that’s reportorial and editorial malpractice. The state’s top official should be heard from. If Wells-Spackman sought reaction and didn’t get any, that should have been reported in his article.
Either way, Phil Scott is conspicuous by his absence. And Digger might have let him off the hook for it.
Update. Apologies to the governor, and brickbats to VTDigger. Scott issued a full-throated statement yesterday afternoon at 1:00 slamming the Trump tariffs as “a bad idea” in bold font. This is all on Wells-Spackman, his editors, and Digger entire. His story was published at 6:21 p.m., more than five hours after the governor’s statement came out. Did they fail to notice? Did they somehow decide that the governor’s views weren’t relevant an article about “Vermont officials” reacting to the tariff announcement? It’s literally incredible.
The governor’s statement in full:
“My feelings on punitive tariffs imposed on Canada have not changed over the last two years and are simply a bad idea that will lead to increased costs on Vermonters. As I’ve said before, this added burden would create real challenges for our residents and businesses who are already facing economic headwinds. Canadians are our friendly neighbors and long‑time allies, and we should be working together to find solutions that strengthen the region, not further divide us. As I prepare to host the Premiers of Eastern Canadian Provinces in Vermont next month, my message is clear: we are good friends and partners, and I’m committed to strengthening our economic and cultural ties to benefit both sides of the border.”
Update to the update, and the updates are now longer than the original story. I got it wrong. The governor’s statement was issued the day after Digger published Wells-Spackman’s piece, not the same day. Careless error on my part, and I apologize. The story was published on 7/21, and Scott’s statrement came out midday on 7/22.
Which leaves me wondering about two things. First, did Wells-Spackman reach out to Scott’s office for comment? If not, why not? If so, why not include it in the story? And second, did Scott’s comms team cobble together a statement after Digger published? That’s a bit embarrassing.
And I hope this is the last time I have to revisit this cluster.
Next month, Gov. Phil Scott is hosting the annual meeting of New England governors and Eastern Canadian premiers… and YOU can get in on the action.
If, that is, you can pony up at least $2,500 for the privilege.
A reader (who shall remain nameless) forwarded me a two-page offer of “partnership opportunities” for the shindig, clearly aimed at well-heeled business types who can claim their big spends as deductible business expenses. The “opportunities” are offered at three levels: $2,500, $5,000, and $10,000. Not disclosed anywhere: Who gets the money? Does it help defray the costs of the meeting? I guess so. I hope none of it goes to, say, Scott’s re-election campaign, because as Dick Nixon reportedly said of paying off the Watergate burglars, “That would be wrong.”
The Vermont Political Observer. 