Seven Days’ legislative reporter Hannah Bassett is out with a short piece about Larry Hart’s resignation as state senator from the Orange district, not named in honor of Donald Trump’s skin tone. Surprise, surprise, Hart couldn’t take “the frustrations of Statehouse politics,” which generally sideline the concerns and ideas of the minority party.
Yeah, how about that, elections have consequences.
And then we get to paragraph five, which is just an absolute stunner.
Hart also said he grew frustrated by measures advanced by the Democratic majority. He said many of the policies he objected to appeared to be driven by Democratic members who were not born in Vermont. Hart said he anticipates that Republican legislators will introduce a bill in January that would bar anyone not born in the state from running for public office.
Gov. Phil Scott couldn’t act fast enough to distance himself from newly-disgraced state Sen. Samuel Douglass. Within hours of a Politico report that identified Douglass as an active participant in a racist, misogynist, anti-Semitic Young Republican group chat that reads like a bunch of adolescent boys trying to out-gross each other, Scott had called for Douglass’ resignation — along with Democratic and Republican legislative leaders.
That’s nice, but Douglass’ politics have been obvious for years. His extreme views were out there for anyone to find, long before our “moderate” governor lent his support to Douglass’ 2024 campaign, long before Scott’s buddies in the Burlington-area business community dumped tens of thousands of dollars into Douglass’ campaign treasury.
Scott must have known what kind of person he was endorsing. Unless he pulled a Sergeant Schultz because he needed Douglass-style Republicans to win elections and eat into Democratic majorities.
I know this because, as far back as 2022, I wrote about Douglass’ extreme views. My post wasn’t based on any deep investigative dives; it was the product of simple searches of social media and YouTube. It was all out there for anyone to find. Too bad no one in political authority or our news media bothered to look. Until Politico gift-wrapped the story and dumped it in our collective laps. Now, suddenly, everyone is paying attention.
Hey, remember December 17, when I broke the news that Lt. Gov. John Rodgers’ campaign had reported spending 31.5% more money than it had received? (His final filing for 2024 reported receiving $216,468 and spending $288,588.01.) Curious thing for a tough-minded fiscal conservative, right?
Yeah, watchdogs, hahaha. (VTDigger, which couldn’t wait to breathlessly inform us that U.S. Rep. Becca Balint’s leadership PAC received small quantities of corporate cash, which is absolutely legal, has yet to publish a goddamn word about Rodgers’ violations of the law. Vermont Public, also silent.)
That single published report about Rodgers’ faulty filings, by Seven Days’ Kevin McCallum, quoted campaign manager Rep. Casey Toof as attributing the gross discrepancy to a pair of whopper-sized bookkeeping errors. McCallum also quoted Rodgers as whining about how hard it is to comply with campaign finance law.
Oh, boo hoo hoo, Johnny, everybody else manages to do it. Why not you, or your experienced politician of a campaign manager?
But enough about the past. Let’s bring things up to date.
Gov. Phil Scott continues to urge Vermonters to take a chill pill and ignore the bull rampaging through the china shop. He tells us to stop focusing on “the rhetoric in D.C.” — without identifying the source of the rhetoric. He did so once again last week in an interview with Vermont Public’s Michaela Lefrak which was faithfully, painfully, completely transcribed on VP’s website. Feast your eyes on this cornucopia of good talkin’.
Well, what— again, we have to wait for whatever the action is he takes against us here in the state, and react to that. And I, I think we have been doing that, but, but for all of us to fall into that trap, I think, is, would be unfortunate and it takes away from all the problems that exist here in Vermont today, that we’re not doing because we’re focusing on the rhetoric that he, he wants to stir up, and I don’t believe we can live in chaos for the next three and a half years. They just have too much to do, too much to accomplish right here in Vermont.
Winston Churchill would be proud.
Anyway, the governor couldn’t be wronger about this. First of all, we’re going to be living “in chaos for the next three and a half years” no matter what. Donald Trump is going to keep waving all the red flags and eroding our democracy and our federal government even if we take Scott’s advice and whistle resolutely past the graveyard.
Trump is a bully. He backtracks when confronted, and then seeks the soft spots in our defenses. It’s exhausting and yes, it takes a lot of time, but we don’t have the luxury of sitting back and waiting for rhetoric to turn into reality. Just ask immigrants, refugees, and transgender folk if they’re feeling secure these days.
Even when it’s nothing more than “rhetoric,” it creates tremendous uncertainty across the board. As Public Service Commissioner Kerrick Johnson told a legislative committee in February, “It changes daily in terms of the program. It changes daily in terms of the program and the people we’re required to work with. It changes daily in terms of the interpretation of the language and what’s being sent.” How the hell can the state do its job in that environment?
But c’mon, it’s gone far beyond mere rhetoric in more ways than I can count. Still, I’ll give it a try. What follows is a list of specific actions taken by the Trump administration that have already had a measurable impact on Vermont and Vermonters. I dare the governor look over this list and gabble placidly about “rhetoric.”
Thankfully, the tide appears to be ebbing on the Great Statehouse Trans PANIC! of 2025. It’s been days since the Vermont Daily Chronicle could gin up any fresh angles on the ridiculous story. Which, as a reminder, featured a group of Christian conservatives whining — inaccurately — that their free speech rights had been trampled by a handful of trans folk dancing around a Statehouse meeting room. As we previously noted, there is no First Amendment right to deliver speech in a given location or on a given medium.
But before we consign this fiasco to the dustbin of history, we should take note of two particularly ridiculous attempts to exploit this mildest of contretemps. First, a tiny extremist “parental rights” group unwittingly exposing the absurdity of its own claims. And second, the head of the Vermont Republican Party claiming that state lawmakers have a solemn duty to maintain a perfect attendance record.
This will involve a bit of exposure to the rantings of SPEAKVT, a group of far-right rabble-rousers in the Essex-Westford school district. The group’s president Marie Tiemann put out a statement about the March 12 “detransitioning” event sponsored by SPEAKVT and the Vermont Family Alliance. Funny thing, her statement is kind of a self-own.
Following his surprise victory over David Zuckerman last November. Lt. Gov. John Rodgers was widely seen as the Great White Hope of the Vermont Republican Party, someone capable of succeeding Gov. Phil Scott. I don’t buy it myself; I think he’s more likely to be the next Scott Milne than the next Jim Douglas. someone who enjoys a brush with electoral success but can never repeat it.
And the primary reason for my belief is that John Rodgers simply does not give a fuck.
The first sign of this was his live interview on local TV the morning after Election Night, when he chose to make his initial public appearance as LG-elect looking like he’d just rolled out of bed and stationed himself in front of the camera wearing a decidedly non-gubernatorial white T-shirt.
The most recent sign is this: Back on February 4, I wrote a post entitled “Bad Grammar, Typos, and Plagiarism: Welcome to John Rodgers’ Official Biography.” In the first line of his bio, he is identified as “the 84rd Lt. Governor of Vermont.” That’s right, “84rd.” There followed a cornucopia of misspellings and offenses against the English language. It was an embarrassment, not only to Rodgers but to the state of Vermont.
You’ll never guess how he responded to this revelation.
The folksy Son of the Soil pictured above is Sam Douglass, senator-elect from the Orleans district. Or, as I find myself thinking of him, Senator Scofflaw. Because while he claims to be a “fierce advocate,” he was shockingly blasé about his legal obligations to report campaign finances accurately and promptly. Makes you wonder about his fierceness, not to mention his devotion to fiscal responsibility.
Because his campaign finance filings are the opposite of “responsibility,” and include numerous violations of state law. Fortunately for him, the penalties are laughably small and rarely enforced. Otherwise he’d be in a heap of trouble. As it is, maybe some Concerned Citizen will see fit to file a complaint with the Attorney General’s Office, for all the good that will do.
Let’s start with the fact that Douglass has yet to file his Final Report, which was due on December 15. And there’s a real need for a final accounting, because his most recent report leaves many questions unanswered.
His post-election filing, submitted on November 19, shows a serious imbalance between income and outgo — and not in the way you’d expect. The Douglass campaign has reported raising nearly $41,000 and spending only $27,460. Did he really leave one-third of his bankroll on the table in a race against Democratic Rep. Katherine Sims, who raised more than $76,000? Or has he failed to fully report his expenditures?
Vermont’s campaign finance law and the Secretary of State’s reporting system can be a challenge, but when you run for public office you are obliged to follow the rules. Besides, Senator Douglass is going to be responsible for writing the laws. Shouldn’t he be capable of obeying them?
Will wonders never cease. Two Republican lawmakers have introduced a bill that would set limits on fundraising for legislative offices. It’s scheduled to get a quick committee hearing Tuesday afternoon, and is likely to be ignored after that. But if the Democratic majority was interested in some world-class trolling, they’d let the bill go forward and watch Republican leadership work frantically to pull the plug on the thing.
Two House members from the Kingdom, Woody Page and Larry Labor, are the lead sponsors of H.116, which would prohibit House and Senate candidates from raising more than $1,000 from any single source — including candidates’ contributions to their own campaigns — and set a $29,000 ceiling for total fundraising by any legislative candidate. (The bill would also do a bunch of other things, but the legislative limits are by far the most impactful.)
Page and Labor found a very friendly ear in The Newport Daily Express, which published a totally one-sided article about the bill that extensively quoted the co-sponsors and just about nobody else. This, despite the fact that the story quoted Page and Labor’s vociferous criticism of former Democratic state representative Katherine Sims, who lost a bid for state Senate in November. There’s no sign that the Express sought comment from Sims, which is gross journalistic malpractice.
What the two Kingdoms’men don’t seem to realize is that their bill would hurt their own party’s cause much more than anything else. Well, there’s also the rank hypocrisy of Republicans, the party of plutocrats, bitching about excess money in politics, but hey, who’s counting?
Update. Within 24 hours of this post going live, the governor announced his first (and so far only) concrete response to the Trump presidency: an interagency task force to assess the potentiial impacts of Trump tariffs on goods imported from Canada and Mexico. Must have been a complete coincidence, right?
You might think that the deliberately shambolic start of the second Trump presidency would have been a major topic at Gov. Phil Scott’s January 30 press conference. After all, in a very short period of time Trump has issued a blizzard of executive orders, many of dubious legality and/or constitutionality, that are designed to radically recast or possibly euthanize the federal government. The one most directly pertinent to governing the state of Vermont was Trump’s since-withdrawn threat to put an immediate halt to a wide range of federal payments. (The threatened imposition of tariffs on Canadian imports would have had a profound effect on Vermont, but they hadn’t been bruited as of January 30 and have since been put on hold.)
You might think the specter of Trump would have dominated Scott’s presser, but you’d be wrong. The topic of the day was, shocker, “affordability,” especially with regard to Scott’s housing plan and his extremely modest tax reduction plan. Which, at $13.5 million, would average out to a scant $20 a year for every Vermonter.
(Of course, it wouldn’t be distributed evenly. The three elements of his plan are (1) an expansion of the Democrats’ child tax credit, (2) an end to state taxation of military pensions, and (3) an end to state taxation of Social Security benefits. The latter two, aimed largely at retirees, seems an odd way to address Vermont’s demographic challenges. Our biggest demographic shortfall is in mid-career adults, who are mainly too old to benefit from a tax credit on young children and not old enough to benefit from the other two provisions.)
Neither Scott nor his officials voluntarily addressed how Trump setting fire to the federal government might impact Vermont. None of the assembled reporters asked a single question about it until the 44-minute mark in a 47-minute presser. Almost an afterthought, then. But Scott’s response was highly informative — for what he didn’t say, more than for what he did.
The Vermont Political Observer. 