Author Archives: John S. Walters

About John S. Walters

Writer, editor, sometime radio personality, author of "Roads Less Traveled: Visionary New England Lives."

Pet Shop Owner: Free Press Makes Best Cage Liner

One Neat Trick To Investigate Bill Sorrell (two, actually)

Letting a sleeping dog lie

When last we left The Mystery Of The Ineffective But Long-Tenured Attorney General, the state’s top executive was backing away from any sort of involvement. Governor Shumlin said he hadn’t read the complaint against Bill Sorrell, and gosh darn it, he wouldn’t be able to until sometime after adjournment.

Reminded me of the old joke about the guy at the sold-out hotel. “If the Pope showed up, would you have a room for him?” “Of course.” “Well, His Holiness isn’t coming, so give me his room.”

The point being, if Shumlin thought Sorrell’s adventures with campaign finance law were a big deal, he’d damn well find the time, toot suite.

As a matter of ethics and good government, I think he’s wrong. Even if he believes Sorrell to be innocent, there are big and numerous enough questions that we can’t just take Sorrell’s word for it anymore. The Governor should call for an independent counsel.

However… as a matter of politics, I see what he’s doing. Continue reading →

Bad day to be a pro-science liberal

9 Replies

As reported earlier, the State Senate has passed a bill that would strike the philosophical exemption for childhood vaccines. And unfortunately for my faith in Senate liberals, opposition to the measure was led — on the flimsiest of grounds — by some of the chamber’s leading lefties. To wit, David Zuckerman, Anthony Pollina, and Ann Cummings.

The bill itself faces an uncertain future. The House briefly considered ending the philosophical exemption earlier in the session and did nothing; supposedly, House leadership is disinclined to stop doing nothing, so this whole thing might have been an elaborate shadow play produced, God knows why, by Senate President Pro Tem John Campbell.

(It was he who raised this idea from the dead and allowed it to be attached to H.98, a “housekeeping” bill enacting a bunch of minor changes to various parts of state government including the vaccine registry. Thus the justification for grafting the philosophical exemption ban, Frankenstein-style, to a wisp of a bill. Kind of a crappy way to change the law, but not exactly unusual in the annals of lawmaking. Why Campbell went out of his way to do this in a very busy session, I have no idea.)

The bill passed on a very one-sided voice vote. Before that, there was a standing vote on adding the amendment to the bill; the tally was 18 yes, 11 no.

The “noes” brought together some strange bedfellows: some of the most liberal solons joined some of the most conservative in opposing the amendment.

Preceding the vote was about a half hour of rather weird debate in which some folks I usually admire came up with flimsy pretexts for their opposition. Leading this parade was Zuckerman, who offered a science-free amendment to the amendment.

On the grounds that some children may be genetically predisposed to allergic reactions to some vaccine ingredients, he proposed requiring “quick genetic tests” to screen out the allergic.

My scientist readers may be laughing their asses off right now. A “quick genetic test” to screen for allergies to the, what, hundreds of ingredients in various vaccines? As I understand it, such testing is in the very early stages of development. But even if it were well-established, I doubt it would be “quick.”

Thankfully, the Zuckerman Amendment was shot down on a voice vote.

Cummings then raised the specter of uncounted Vermont schoolchildren being forced into “truancy” because their parents refused to let them be vaccinated. She argued that in a time when student counts are in decline, we shouldn’t do something that might mean more kids are “forced out of school.”

Uh-huh. I can just imagine the legions of parents who would actually take their kids out of school rather than allow them to be vaccinated.

Zuckerman followed the same line, predicting lower student enrollments, higher taxes, and even widespread school closures because so many refusenik parents would keep their kids home.

Pollina doubled down, arguing that we shouldn’t require vaccinations because “people might move out of state” rather than see their kids vaccinated.

Okay, let’s see now. First, all our neighboring states — Massachusetts, New York, and “Live Free Or Die” New Hampshire don’t allow philosophical exemptions. So the claptrap Pollina is peddling is that legions of vaccine refuseniks will uproot their lives and move to a distant state that offers a philosophical exemption. (There are only 18 others that do.)

One of the primary arguments made by exemption supporters is that it doesn’t hurt anybody because so few people actually seek an exemption; less than four percent of Vermont parents have done so. How many of them would take the extreme step of dislocating their lives or home-schooling their kids rather than let them be vaccinated?

It wouldn’t be a mass exodus, let’s put it that way.

Zuckerman produced a map, showing that some small districts have high rates of philosophical exemptions. He said that those schools would be especially vulnerable if exemptions were limited. He contradicted himself, of course, when he argued against the idea that those districts are also especially vulnerable to outbreaks of vaccine-preventable diseases.

Which is it, Senator? No harm (from contagious illness), or catastrophic consequences (in enrollment)?

The three Senators were desperately grabbing at any pretext, no matter how absurd, to preserve the philosophical exemption — without coming right out and saying that they are anti-vaxxers themselves. Or worse, that they support vaccination and are merely placating the anti-vaxxers in their constituencies.

If they’d come irght out and argued against vaccination, at least they would have been intellectually consistent. The closest any of them came to such an argument was when Zuckerman asserted that “there is disputed evidence” on both sides of the issue. Which is the kind of thing we usually hear from the anti-climate change crowd: “There are arguments on both sides, and who am I to judge?”

These are people I usually admire and agree with. Today, I saw a completely different side to them — a desperate, evasive, rhetorically bankrupt side. It wasn’t pretty.

A festival of preconceived notions (UPDATED)

2 Replies

Update: The full Senate has approved H.98 as amended, to end the philosophical exemption. Details below.

Well, the Senate Health and Welfare Committee held a purely-for-show hearing this morning on whether to remove the philosophical exemption for vaccinations. The anti-vax crowd got an hour, and the pro-vax (I call it “science”) crowd got one.

No one’s mind was changed. And the schedule clearly indicated that “changing minds” wasn’t the purpose of the hearing: the committee held a very brief discussion immediately afterward, expressed its sentiment in favor of removing the philosophical exemption, and sent it to the Senate floor for action — immediately after lunchtime. Talk about your fast track: Committee chair Claire Ayer (good to see her back at work, BTW) had barely enough time to grab some lunch and formalize the committee’s findings for presentation to the Senate.

The committee didn’t take a formal vote because technically, all they were doing was reporting to the full Senate on a couple of key questions:

— What are the benefits and/or risks of immunization?
— How does the philosophical exemption affect the efficacy of vaccination?

Although there was no vote, each member stated their positions. Four were in favor of ending the philosophical exemption (Ayer, Jeanette White, Brian Collamore, Dick McCormack) and one was opposed (Anthony Pollina).

It’s widely believed that the full Senate will approve the measure on a pretty one-sided vote this afternoon. But the debate should be interesting, and the “No” votes may include an unusual coalition of the very liberal and very conservative.

The real action will come after today, when the House and Senate will have to resolve their differences. The original House bill did nothing to the philosophical exemption. Which chamber will carry the day? And how vociferous will the anti-vax lobbying effort be?

Don’t expect the Governor to do anything about Bill Sorrell

3 Replies

Went to Governor Shumlin’s news conference today, planning to ask about the Bill Sorrell situation. Which, as you might recall, featured Our Eternal General facing questions about possible campaign finance violations (and VTGOP Vice Chair Brady Toensing formally requesting an independent counsel), and Our Eternal General assuring us all that Our Eternal General is above reproach and an independent probe would be a waste of money, Trust Me On This.

And a couple days ago, I rhetorically asked the state’s top elected Democrats what they planned to do about it.

The answer from Governor Shumlin? Nothing anytime soon. Maybe nothing ever. Because he’s just too busy doing the people’s business.

(If the press corps had been playing the Governor Shumlin Drinking Game, in which everyone has to take a swig every time he repeats certain catchphrases, we all would have been falling-down drunk within a few minutes. The rhetorical bag of tricks was emptied in an effort to evade responsibility.)

I threw out the first Sorrell question: Does the Governor think there should be an independent counsel to look into the allegations?

You know, as you can imagine, I am really focused on trying to get my agenda through the legislature. It’s the most ambitious agenda that I’e set out. And these things have to succeed. Balancing $112M budget shortfall. Getting out of hear with a clean water bill that actually cleans up our polluted waters. Making sure that we finally address both the cost and quality issues in our education system. Getting out of here with my energy bill. That’s what I’m focused on.

I have not had a chance to read the complaint. When the Legislature is all done, I suppose I’ll have time to do that, but I’m focused on my job.

Even by Shumlin standards, that was a rapid-fire pivot away from the question at hand. Continue reading →

Scion of Koch-favored candidate to visit Queen City

3 Replies

This ought to be fun.

Matt Walker, son of WI Gov. Scott Walker at UVM – http://t.co/3xy2kzqHqy — BTV GOP (@BTV_GOP) April 20, 2015

Dudebrah! Duuuuuuudebrah!!

The link takes you to an announcement that, yes indeed, Matt Walker will be guest speaker at an Activism Training on Thursday evening at UVM.

Event organizer is none other than American Majority, the “raising up the next generation of nutballs” group whose Vermont chief is Tayt Brooks, former Douglas administration flunky and the guy who blew a million bucks of Lenore Broughton’s fortune on the ill-fated Vermonters First “buy an election” effort. This whole event stinks of the conservative big-money network spearheaded by the Koch brothers. Continue reading →

The barely concealed extremism of an anti-vaccine group

2 Replies

We’re gearing up for another round of the philosophical-exemption debate at the Statehouse. As you may have heard, a State Senate committee is considering a bill that would remove the philosophical exemption for childhood vaccinations. Which has the anti-vaccine community’s knickers in a knot.

Well, they don’t call themselves “the anti-vaccine community,” but that’s exactly what they are. Vermont’s primary anti-vaxx group is the Vermont Coalition for Vaccine Choice (VCVC). It publicly presents itsels as entirely focused on parental choice. From its website:

We are not “anti-vaxxers”… We are dedicated to preserving health choice and informed consent for parents and all Vermonters.

Problem is, the leaders of VCVC just can’t help themselves. Their website prominently trumpets the work of, among others, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., an anti-vaxxer who promotes the discredited vaccine/autism canard and who has called vaccination “a holocaust.”

But if you want to see the real scope of VCVC’s nutbaggery, you ought to follow its Twitter feed. You’ll find links to every scattered anecdotal report of alleged vaccine harm, every fringey “scientific study” attacking vaccine efficacy or safety, every alternative-medicine type promoting their own agendas, and every rhetorical excess about vaccination, doctors, nurses, government, and science.

Here are a few choice examples. Reminder: these are communications from a group that claims NOT to be “anti-vaxxers.”

Let’s start with a ham-fisted attack on Vermont media for the unforgivable sin of reporting the science on vaccines, which is fully as probative as the science on climate change and evolution:

Sad to see that certain #VT media outlets are overtly sellouts to #bigpharma. Careful what you wish for. They… http://t.co/j1TitSub6B — VaxChoice VT (@VaxChoiceVT) April 2, 2015

They’d probably call me a sellout too. Problem is, I haven’t seen a dime from Big Pharma. I just happen to believe the massive preponderance of scientific evidence. VCVC, on the other hand, searches through the flotsam and jetsam of junk science.

When it comes to their own children, pediatricians are saying no to the recommended CDC schedule. Gee, what is… http://t.co/skuPaJhyDI — VaxChoice VT (@VaxChoiceVT) April 18, 2015

The study was published in the Open Journal of Pediatrics, one of many “open journals” created by Scientific Research Publishing (SCIRP), which offers “244 English language open access journals.” SCIRP is based on Wuhan, China, and has been accused of being a predatory open access publisher.

Predatory open access publishers don’t provide the editorial oversight of real scientific publishers; they aggressively solicit papers, publish them with little or no review, and then try to bill the authors for publication costs. In other words, their articles are not to be trusted. But if an article calls vaccination into question, VCVC is happy to accept it at face value and promote it.

More… after the jump. Continue reading →

It’s time for an outside probe of our Eternal General

1 Reply

Brady Toensing, D.C. attorney and vice chair of the VTGOP, has sometimes operated as the political equivalent of an ambulance chaser — taking legal actions with an obvious partisan motive. He comes by it honestly; his mother and stepdad are notorious conservative attack dogs.

But this time, I’m with him 100%. Toensing has sent a letter to Eternal General Bill Sorrell, asking him to appoint an independent counsel to investigate Sorrell’s campaign activities.

This is the second time Toensing has made this request. The first was in October 2012, in the midst of the election campaign — which was reason enough to dismiss it as a partisan stunt. But now, the time has come. There’s enough smoke around Sorrell’s campaign activities to warrant an objective fireman. Especially since Vermont’s campaign finance law makes Bill Sorrell the sole judge and arbiter of whether Bill Sorrell has violated the law. Which Bill Sorrell assures us is not the case. Indeed, he has already rejected Toensing’s request, insisting again that he’s done nothing wrong. We just have to take his word for it, I guess.

This stinks, and if any situation required an outside probe, it’s this one.

Toensing cites four allegations:

— “Coordinated expenditures” in the hotly-contested 2012 primary. Sorrell received a late blast of money (200 G’s) from the Democratic Attorneys General Association (by way of a third party superPAC). As Toensing’s letter says: “This record-setting expenditure was controlled and directed by former Governor Howard Dean, who, at the same time, was an active, high-level agent of your campaign.”

That money was almost certainly the deciding factor in Sorrell’s whisker-thin victory over TJ Donovan. And as Toensing notes in his complaint, one month before the primary, Sorrell “revers[ed] his office policy to allow PACS to accept contributions in excess of the state limit of $2000 and still make unlimited campaign expenditures in Vermont. This action cleared the way for the unprecedented expenditures made on General Sorrell’s behalf during the primary.”

— Failure to comply with campaign finance disclosure laws mandating that a candidate report “each expenditure listed by amount, date, to whom paid, for what purpose.” As Paul Heintz has reported, Sorrell’s reports for personal-expense reimbursement have included numerous vague and incomplete entries.

— A joint appearance with Dean Corren, candidate for Lieutenant Governor, on September 15, 2014. While Sorrell has aggressively pursued Corren for accepting an email blast from the Vermont Democratic Party, he has denied any wrongdoing in his appearance with Corren. He has, in fact, claimed that the appearance was not a campaign event — which is laughable to the point of bitter tears.

— Sorrell has routinely given state business to outside law firms that have contributed heavily to his re-election campaigns. Sorrell denies any quid pro quo, but Toensing cites legal precedent that indicates “In cases involving government officials, a jury can infer guilt from evidence of benefits received and subsequent favorable treatment.”

By that standard, Sorrell’s own denials are clearly inadequate. Given his refusal to investigate himself, as Toensing says, “the appointment of an independent counsel is necessary to restore and maintain the integrity of your office.”

I fully expect Bill Sorrell to refuse this very reasonable request for an objective probe of Bill Sorrell. At that point, we will turn to other Democratic officeholders for leadership. Governor Shumlin has repeatedly ducked questions about Sorrell’s activities, while Secretary of State Jim Condos has said his office lacks the standing to investigate.

Well, standing or no, Shumlin and Condos have their bully pulpits. It’s time to put them to use. They don’t have to throw Sorrell under the bus; all they have to do is say “There are questions that deserve answers, and the only way to restore public trust is through an independent counsel.”

Heck, if they want to, they can even throw in a gratuitous “I’m sure the investigation will show that General Sorrell acted properly.” The important thing is, it’s time to put the heat to Sorrell’s backside and get answers to all of these questions.

Governor? Mr. Secretary? Mr. Speaker? Mr. Pro Tem? We’re waiting.

Ethan Allen Institute: Follow the Money

10 Replies

Back on March 25, the Senate Natural Resources and Energy Committee held a public hearing on S.R.7, the “climate change resolution.” The only witness who stood in opposition was Vermont’s favorite crank, John McClaughry, founder and former President (now Vice President) of the Ethan Allen Institute.

You’re being watched, Mr. McClaughry.

During his testimony, he said S.R.7 was part of a campaign by national climate advocacy groups “to put the skeptics on the defensive” and serve as a fundraising tool. By passing this resolution, he said, the Legislature would act as a “pawn” of those national groups.

Okay, well, since he brought up the idea of a national campaign and national organizations influencing Vermont politics, resolution sponsor Sen. Brian Campion asked him about the Ethan Allen Inistitute’s ties to the Koch brothers and their national network. McClaughry acknowledged a $50,000 grant from the Cato Institute “six years ago,” and he noted Cato’s ties to the Kochs. But otherwise?

I have never been aware that we got any money from the Koch Brothers or the Koch Foundation or Koch Industries, anything like that. And I’ve never had communication from any of those people urging me to, or urging our organization to fight against the climate change advocates. Never.

He went on to deny receiving funds from the State Policy Network, an umbrella organization with strong ties to the Kochs. SPN provides guidance and funding to free-market “think tanks” in each of the 50 states.

There’s a small problem and a big problem with McClaughry’s professions of independence.

The small problem: According to IRS filings, SPN gave EAI $24,930 in 2013.

I’ve been told, second-hand, that McClaughry later wrote to Campion apologizing for his misstatement. If I find out more about that, I’ll let you know.

That kinda-sorta takes care of the small problem. But it fails to address the big problem, which is:

Between 1998 and 2013, EAI received at least $572,260 from out-of-state donors with ties to the Koch brothers’ sprawling network of right-wing foundations. This network is designed to limit public disclosure and provide tax breaks for “charitable donations” that promote the political interests of wealthy conservatives. The network is also designed to give donors plausible deniability by laundering their donations while still giving them control over how their money is used.

Over the past ten years, EAI’s annual revenues have fluctuated between $132,000 and $201,000. So $572,280 is a whole lot of money by EAI standards.

My figures come from Conservative Transparency, a database that ” tracks the flow of money among conservative donors, advocacy groups, political committees, and candidates.”

It’s likely that EAI has received even more money from national conservative organizations, but legal disclosure standards are woefully weak. From the Conservative Transparency website:

Although most nonprofit organizations are required by law to report their outgoing grants to the Internal Revenue Service, they do not have to disclose the sources of their funding. As a result, the transactions in Conservative Transparency are based on information reported by the donors and exclude “dark money” raised by the recipients from unknown donors that are not in the database. The totals in each recipient’s “financial record” are based on a review of the recipient’s publicly available tax documents filed with the IRS.

CT lists 36 donations to EAI from out-of-state conservative groups between 1998 and 2013 (the most recent year for which filings are available), totaling $572,280. A lot of that money came, indirectly, from the Kochs, their organizations, and their fellow members of this broad conservative network.

These donations came from a handful of national foundations, all with strong alliances to the Kochs and their nonprofit empire. This network is designed to provide an appearance of independence, but there’s no doubt that the Ethan Allen Institute is in the Kochs’ orbit.

Here’s a list of EAI benefactors, with dollar figures from Conservative Transparency and descriptions from Sourcewatch.org.

Donors Capital Fund: $298,500. DCF and a related entity, DonorsTrust, “create separate accounts for individual donors, and the donors then recommend disbursements from the accounts to different non-profits. They cloak the identity of the original mystery donors because the funds are then distributed in the name of DT or DCF.

“The Koch brothers and other ultra-wealthy industrial ideologues appear to be cloaking an untold amount of their donations to conservative political outlets through DT and DCF.” One of Charles Koch’s big funds has given “only to Donors Capital Fund since 2005.”

The modus operandi of DCF provides plausible deniability to EAI and other recipients; they can assert with a straight face that they don’t get money from the Kochs. But they do benefit from the largesse of a money-laundering operation created by, and generously funded by, the Kochs.

The Roe Foundation: $95,000. Private foundation started by the late Thomas Roe, former chairman of the State Policy Network, a key cog in the Koch machine. (See below.) His foundation “continues to provide financial support to free-market policy groups across the country.”

The Jaquelin Hume Foundation. $63,000. The Foundation “‘supports free-market solutions to education reform’ and funds many conservative and libertarian organizations.” It has strong ties to the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) and the State Policy Network.

The Cato Institute: $50,000. A “libertarian think tank founded by Charles Koch and funded by the Koch brothers.” Over the years, “the Koch family has donated more than $30 million to the organization.”

The State Policy Network. $24,930. SPN “has franchised, funded, and fostered… a web of right-wing ‘think tanks’ in every state across the country. It is an $83 million right-wing empire as of the 2011 funding documents from SPN itself and each of its state ‘think tank’ members.” SPN had its origins in the 1980s, but dramatically stepped up its activities in 1998.

“Fueled by robust funding from right-wing funders including the Koch brothers… SPN has grown rapidly in recent years. There were 12 original think tanks when SPN was founded. In 2013, there were 64 SPN member think tanks in all 50 states.”

Although SPN insists its members are “fiercely independent,” The New Yorker’s Jane Mayer has reported that SPN head Tracie Sharp “compared the organization’s model to that of IKEA.” Like IKEA, SPN “would provide the raw materials along with the services needed to assemble the products. …’Pick what you need,’ she said, ‘and customize it for what works best for you.’

“… Sharp ‘also acknowledged privately that the organization’s often anonymous donors frequently shape the agenda. ‘The grants are driven by donor intent’ .. [and] often ‘the donors have a very specific idea of what they want to happen.'”

The Chase Foundation of Virginia. $24,830. “the private foundation of investor Derwood Chase.” It gave nearly $900,000 to right-wing groups in 2011 alone. Its beneficiaries have included many of SPN’s state-based organizations.

The JM Foundation. $15,000. According to its own website, it was created by Jeremiah Milbank, who “was an ardent believer in individual liberty, limited government, and free markets.” It lists its top activity as “supporting education and research that fosters market-based policy solutions, especially at state think tanks.” Like, for instance, the Ethan Allen Institute and its SPN cohorts.

That’s it. The Ethan Allen Institute may be able to deny knowingly receiving money from the Kochs, but there’s no doubt that it is significantly dependent on out-of-state “foundations” with very strong Koch ties, and with Koch dollars providing much of their lifeblood.

Last time I wrote about EAI, I mentioned a Tweet that accused me of lying about its ties to the Kochs. I expect I’ll get an apology about the time Hell freezes over.

The Vermont Political Observer.

a.k.a. theVPO: Analysis and observation of Vermont politics from a liberal viewpoint