Doubtless I sound like a broken record (Google it, kids) when I mention that our sadly reduced political press rarely reports on campaign finance anymore, but it’s especially true in this case. While doing research on fundraising and spending in the contest for control of the Burlington City Council, I couldn’t help but notice a bunch of other fascinating things from other cities and towns. Like, there are some candidates who are spending large quantities of money for relatively small offices. And a few of ’em appear to be violating state law by failing to adequately account for their finances.

These aren’t huge numbers by any means, but they’re out of proportion to what other candidates are spending for similar offices. Soapbox moment: Any local outlet covering local races ought to look at campaign finance filings to see what their local hopefuls are raising and spending. It’s something their readers should know. It’d be more interesting than the stock previews or candidate Q&As that are long on platitude and short on insight.

It might be nice for the good people of Hinesburg, for instance, to know that Todd Portelance, candidate for select board, has spent more than $2,000 but has reported zero fundraising. If he’s self-funded his own campaign, he has failed to report that fact. And yes, he checked the box on the reporting form that says “I hereby verify, under the pains and penalties of perjury, that the information provided is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief.” So he has no excuses.

I doubt that any chicanery is involved. Carelessness would be my prime suspect. But the purpose of campaign finance law is to let the public know where candidates are getting their money and what they’re spending it on. This is only possible if candidates take their responsibilities seriously.

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.

Man, we could really use some Pat Leahy right about now.

Not that I have any beef with his decision to retire. It was the right thing to do. But Leahy was our D.C. wizard, our bureaucratic Batman, and now that he’s gone we seem to be struggling with, whaddya know, wielding influence on the federal level.

Leahy wasn’t the most progressive of figures. But his decades of seniority and his insider expertise meant that Vermont punched above its weight on governmental matters, especially when it came to money. I wouldn’t say we’ve got no clout in the post-Pat era, but we’ve got a lot less than we did when he was watching over Gotham.

Before the 2022 election, we had the president pro tem of the freakin’ Senate, plus a key leader of the House Democratic Caucus in Peter Welch. At a time when we were losing Leahy’s pull, Welch’s decision to run for Senate dealt us a double blow.

Now, Welch is a politician with a politician’s ego. It would have been awfully tough for him to turn down a career-capping promotion to the Senate and an exit from the barely controlled madness of the House. But he didn’t do Vermont any favors when he did so. At age 77, he won’t get the chance to reach the upper rungs of the senatorial ladder. And Bernie’s next term will almost certainly be his last, assuming he disposes of Scary Eagle Man in November. We’re gonna be charity cases in the Senate for years to come, and Becca Balint has just begun her ascent in the House. Plus, she’ll almost certainly run for the Senate at the first incumbent-free opportunity, putting us back at the bottom in the House.

So, Bernie’s running for re-election. At age 82. Well, we have way too many old politicians who believe they’re indispensable, but Bernie is not anywhere near the top of my list for thinning out the herd. He remains the most prominent voice in America for small-p progressive politics. He is a uniquely impactful figure.

So I’m fine with him running for another term. Although, perhaps ironically, I still think he should have left the Senate in 2018. But we’ll get to that in a minute, after discussing one age-related item he should consider.

Which is, he should stop with the “independent” pose and run as a capital-P Progressive. He can still caucus with the Democrats, but he needs to adopt a party label for the first time since his benighted days under the Liberty Union banner.