The latest round of campaign finance reports tells the same old story: Gov. Phil Scott is meandering to re-election, while Democratic challenger Esther Charlestin is on a road to nowhere.

This post will focus on the governor, who is squandering an opportunity to put his stamp on Vermont politics. As is his wont. But first, a moment on Charlestin. She did manage to raise more money than she spent in September, so her campaign actually has two nickels to rub together. But not much more than that.

Charlestin raised $12,921 last month, which was decent by her standards but pitifully small in terms of fueling a competitive effort. Her fundraising total for the entire campaign is a ridiculous $34,522. Recall that Howard Dean set $2 million as the required bankroll for a serious run at Scott, and realize that with a month left before Election Day, Charlestin is 1.7% of the way there. Yikes.

Context: As of October 1, 2022, the famously resource-strapped Brenda Siegel had raised $149,193 — more than four times as much as Charlestin. Double yikes.

Charlestin’s campaign spent $8,626 in September, bringing total expenditures to $30,935, so she enters October with a robust balance of $3,587. Triple yikes with whipped cream and sprinkles on top.

But enough about that. Let’s turn to what Phil Scott is doing. Or, more to the point, what he could and should be doing.

Last week, VTDigger published a nice bit of Philwashing under the title “Phil Scott Is Campaigning Harder Than He Has In Years, But Not for Himself.” That’s true, but only by his own pitiful standards. He really hasn’t had to campaign hard since 2016. He’s not sleepwalking through 2024, but he could be doing far, far more. And you’d think that after a historic number of veto overrides, he’d be fully motivated to win as big as possible and take down the Legislature’s supermajorities.

And the plain truth is, he’s not.

Let’s look at what he’s doing. His campaign raised $62,156 in September, enough to maintain his massive monetary advantage over Charlestin but not nearly as much as he could be pulling in. His total for the cycle is a bit more than $250,000, which means he’s left, at minimum, a couple million on the table.

Of course he doesn’t need the money for his own sake, but if he were serious about affecting politics and policy, he’d be going all out to support down-ballot Republicans and build a political movement in his image.

And he himself wouldn’t have to do all of that. He has people who can make the calls and do the heavy lifting. So I don’t want to hear that he’s too laser focused on leading the people of Vermont Ito a more prosperous, affordable future to devote himself to — ugh, horrors, politics.

He has taken a few steps. As the Digger story notes, he’s been making personal appearances alongside Republican legislative candidates, some of whom are credible and reputable. That helps a bit, although the audiences at such events are likely dominated by committed Republican voters.

Digger also notes that his campaign has spent $87,500 on TV ads, including one — one — that asks voters to “elect more common sense legislators.” No names are mentioned.

C’mon. Even if the entire amount was spent on that single ad, that’s a drop in the goddamn bucket. The Scott campaign entered this cycle with $332,359 in the bank and raised another quarter million, but he’s only spending an unknown fraction of $87,500 on a generic call for more like-minded lawmakers?

And, again, he could have raised far more than that if he was really “ready to do whatever I can” to elect more Republicans,” as he said at one campaign appearance. I’m sorry, but that’s bullshit. He is doing some small percentage of “whatever I can.”

He could be flooding the airwaves with ads, instead of dribbling out a handful that won’t move the needle one bit.

More to the point, TV isn’t the right medium for what the governor wants to accomplish. He should be paying for direct mail in select districts with vulnerable Democratic incumbents and credible Republican challengers. Maybe some radio as well, since that can be somewhat targeted to specific districts. Digital ads on Facebook, Instagram and Front Porch Forum. Heck, do some o’ them Tick-Tock videos the kids are all about.

Better still, focus entirely on the state Senate, where the supermajority is more vulnerable. Imagine an all-out Phil Scott effort in support of Scott Beck and Pat Brennan and Chris Mattos and Samuel Douglass and that guy who’s running against Mark MacDonald.

Sorry, due respect, the guy’s name is Larry Hart, Sr., and he’s… well… uh… he’s barely campaigning. Hart hasn’t filed a campaign finance report since August 1, and at that time he reported total fundraising of $750. From a grand total of two donors.

I withdraw my due respect. He’s “that guy who’s running against Mark MacDonald.”

I mean, really now. If things go well for the Republicans, the Hart/MacDonald race could be absolutely critical for their ability to sustain gubernatorial vetoes. And they’ve got “that guy” running a zero-effort campaign and the governor putting a bit of effort into a generic call for more Republicans in the Statehouse?

Pitiful.

VTGOP Chair Paul Dame kind of let the cat out of the bag in the Digger piece: ““The governor is spending some of the political capital that he’s been very judicious with up to this point.”

“Some” of the political capital. That he’s been “very judicious with.”

Translation: FINALLY! He’s doing A LITTLE BIT of what he COULD have done LONG AGO!

I have previously laid out a vision for a Phil Scott political machine that could change the course of Vermont politics for the rest of his governorship and beyond: a Scott-branded Super PAC, an Emerge Vermont-style training program for fiscally conservative candidates, and an energetic, focused re-election campaign that could move the needle on the legislative balance of power.

Democratic dominance notwithstanding, the Vermont electorate tends toward the middle, toward the kind of “balance” that Scott yearns for. Look at the governors we’ve elected over the past four-plus decades: Dick Snelling. Howard Dean. Jim Douglas. Phil Scott. Peter Shumlin was an outlier, and he was no progressive, small- or capital-P. (And he wore out his welcome in a hurry.)

Good thing for the Democrats that Phil Scott’s definition of “whatever I can” is so limited. Otherwise they’d have their work cut out for them.