The September 1 campaign finance reports crystallized something we already knew: This is shaping up to be an unsurprising political season because there’s such a deep divide between those on top and those trying to get a leg up. The former include Gov. Phil Scott and a whole bunch of Democrats; the latter include every other Republican minus a few who’ve been blessed by the patronage of Burlington’s business elite.

The exception to the Democratic rule: Esther Charlestin, who entered September financially underwater in her long-odds (and getting longer every day) gubernatorial campaign. Somehow, the financial gap between Scott and Charlestin managed to grow in August.

This isn’t a typo: Charlestin has raised only $21,137 and spent $22,309. On primary night, Charlestin told VTDigger she would “go hard” in the general campaign, which meant knocking on doors, seeking endorsements, and “raising a lot more money.”

But she didn’t do that. For the entire month of August, Charlestin raised $4,505, which isn’t anywhere close to “a lot more money.” I can’t say how much of this is her doing and how much is Democratic donors turning their backs; Charlestin didn’t score any donations above $250, and that came from longtime Progressive stalwart Martha Abbott. Hey, Dems: Do you like your candidate or don’t you?

Meanwhile, Scott continues to raise far more money than he needs, and spend money like he’s got an actual battle on his hands instead of an almost certain walkover.

During August, Scott took in $35,112, bringing his campaign total to $187,914. He has spent, God only knows why, $123,455 so far including $22,619 in August. He entered September with $64,459 in cash on hand. Oh, and he’s got that big fat $332,359 surplus from previous campaigns, bringing his available funds to almost $400,000. Which is, pardon my math, an infinite multiple of Charleston’s balance.

He’d have even more in the bank if he wasn’t spending money at a rapid clip. Again, why? Is he giving longtime aide turned campaign manager Jason Maulucci a useful line on the resumé by letting him test drive a training-wheels campaign?

Scott spent big on campaign staff in August: $9,502 for salaries and $2,247 for staff health insurance. It’s generous of him to provide coverage, but why even have a staff? Because it’s what you do when you’re a candidate with more cash than creativity, I guess.

He also paid $5,800 for polling. I know I keep saying “Why?” but… WHY? (The polling firm is Don’t AFK*, LLC, located in McHenry, Ilinois. If you DuckDuckGo the company, you get precisely zero matches. They don’t have a website, even? Don’t AFK is in the Illinois Secretary of State’s business registry, but there’s no information about company officials or purpose. Its “registered agent” is Rocket Lawyer Corporate Services. No individuals listed. Hm.)

Scott could park his campaign right now and still walk to re-election in November. His biggest political concern is not his own fate, but the legislative supermajorities that have overridden 12 of his vetoes in the last two years. He has more than enough money to look over the Republican ticket, identify a dozen or more candidates with decent prospects, and give maximum donations to each of their campaigns. He could also pay for an advertising blitz seeking to tie their bids to his popularity, as long as he didn’t actively coordinate his activities with the candidates.

But then Phil Scott has never been known for out-of-the-box thinking.

The rest of the statewide ticket is where things get bleak for the VTGOP. Their candidate for lieutenant governor, former Democratic senator John Rodgers, is doing okay thanks to a steady flow of four-figure donations from the Burlington-area business community, but the rest of the statewide ticket is a Potemkin village: at a glance it looks like a ticket, but it falls to pieces upon further review.

Rodgers followed up his banner July with a less productive August, pulling in $ 18,660 for a campaign total of $63,610. He has spent a total of $48,573 so far, which seems excessive to the task of defeating primary opponent Gregory Thayer. It also leaves Rodgers in a relatively weak cash position with about $15,000 in the bank.

The incumbent LG, Prog/Dem David Zuckerman, is motoring along like a certain article was never published just before the primary. He has raised more than $165,000 to date, although he spent $133,000 turning aside what was expected to be a tough challenge (but really wasn’t) from Democrat Thomas Renner. Zuckerman enters the fall campaign with more than $30,000 in hand plus an $11,158 surplus from previous years. He’s also got a lengthy list of loyal small-dollar donors, which should more than offset whatever big gifts Rodgers can leverage from The Usual Suspects. I know this is the closest thing to drama on the statewide level — including the races for U.S. Congress, which follow federal reporting deadlines — but it’s awfully thin gruel.

Elsewhere on the statewide ticket: Joshua Bechhoefer, candidate for treasurer, has yet to file the report that was due on Saturday. Ture Nelson, newly minted candidate for attorney general, reported raising $5,000 which seems like a decent start, but every dollar came from his own pocket. All-purpose candidate H. Brooke Paige filed “Under Threshold” reports for his bids for auditor and secretary of state, meaning he didn’t even raise or spend $500.

Meanwhile, the Democratic ticket is flush with cash — if they’re even bothering to try. Treasurer Mike Pieciak continues to raise money like someone planning a future bid for higher office. He raised $31,873 in August for a ridiculous campaign total of $276,535. He’s also got a $33,472 surplus from previous campaigns. (His August donors include some familiar names from the business community: Eric Farrell, Pietro Lynn, Casella Waste Systems, Peter Edelmann, Bill Bissonette.) His opponent, Bechhoefer, had reported total fundraising of $2,000 as of August 1, all of it from a certain Myers Mermel, owner of the Radio Vermont Group.

And yet Pieciak has spent $138,019 so far on his campaign, which is at least $138,018 more than he needed to. I mean, look at Auditor Doug Hoffer. He has raised a grand total of $205 as he ambles casually toward his seventh term. Pieciak could do the same. Instead, he flexes.

(Side note. As I searched the Internet for information related to this post, I came across a March story from WPTZ-TV which reported that Hoffer’s seventh term will be his final one. He told Channel 5 he won’t run for re-election in 2026. I managed to miss this until now, and I don’t think it was reported anywhere else. “I’m not a spring chicken anymore,” the just-turned-73 Hoffer told the teevee, and added “I have a great deputy.” I think we can mark that down as an implicit endorsement of said deputy, former Senate president pro tem Tim Ashe, to be his successor.)

Attorney General Charity Clark put the brakes on fundraising last month, taking in a mere $615. She’s raised more than she needs already; between the surplus she brought into this cycle and the money she’s raised and not spent, she has almost $62,000 in cash on hand. That should be ample to defeat The Bearded Wonder of Barre.

Secretary of State Sarah Copeland Hanzas isn’t sweating it either. She raised $4,518 in August, most of it from the Vermont Realtors PAC ($2,240) and lobbying firm The Necrason Group ($1,000). She entered September with close to $30,000 in the bank including a modest surplus from previous campaigns. And her competition is H. Brooke “Under Threshold” Paige.

This post is plenty long enough without getting into legislative races, but suffice it to say that the vast majority of Republican candidates for House and Senate barely have two nickels to rub together unless they’re self-funding. There are a few exceptions, but only a few. Not enough of ’em to end the supermajorities. The Burlington business class has wasted a lot of its donations this cycle, and Phil Scott isn’t putting his financial muscle to the task. It leaves the VTGOP with bleak prospects for winning anything of real significance this year, despite all the talk of a brewing tax revolt.