Tag Archives: Don Turner

A passel o’ peevishness on Inauguration Day (Part Two)

Leave a reply

In Part One, I mused about the overreactions and hurt fee-fees on both sides of yesterday’s Inaugural protest. Now, let’s turn our attention to the Republican reaction to Gov. Shumlin’s inaugural address.

Their main point, according to VTDigger’s Laura Krantz?

Gov. Peter Shumlin ignored the most pressing issues facing Vermont in the first speech of his third term, Republican leaders said Thursday in response to the inaugural address.

… Republicans, gathered in the Senate cloakroom, said they were disappointed Shumlin ignored property taxes and health care — two issues that topped voter concerns during the elections last fall.

The speech focused on energy and the environment, so the complaint is technically accurate. But it deliberately ignores the fact that Shumlin billed this speech as Part One of a two-part 2015 agenda. And the governor specifically said he will address the “missing” issues in next week’s budget address.

“Just because the governor has acknowledged that his plan is a failure doesn’t mean he can ignore health care. We still need to address it,” said Rep. Patti Komline, R-Dorset.

Well, he didn’t “ignore” health care. He said he’d address it next week.

Sen. Joe Benning, R-Lyndonville, said the speech focused not on saving money but on spending more.

Again, the budget address hasn’t happened yet. That’s when Shumlin promises a plan to balance the budget. And, for the fiscal conservatives among us, Shumlin’s energy/environment speech contained very little in the way of new spending. The energy part was mainly about new regulation of renewables, which doesn’t involve any state spending. The Governor did propose two fees to help fund Lake Champlain cleanup, but both are narrowly targeted on sectors that contribute heavily to Champlain’s problems — agriculture and commercial/industrial development.

Republicans said they are open to his ideas about cleaning up Lake Champlain and other waterways but those are not the big problems.

Well, actually it IS a big and urgent problem because, as they well know, the EPA is holding Vermont’s feet to the fire. If we don’t come up with a solid plan, including new funding, then the feds will come down on us hard. That makes Champlain a top priority.

Speaking of new urgency, here’s another Republican missing the point.

“It needs doing but where was he four years ago on this?” said Rep. Brian Savage, R-Swanton.

Well, he was doing the same thing Jim Douglas did before him: postponing the Day of Reckoning as long as possible. As Rep. Savage well knows, the EPA has run out of patience, so Shumlin can’t possibly put it off any longer.

Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says.

“Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says.”

House Minority Leader Don Turner was his usual obstructive self, strongly opposing any new taxes or fees, and even blasting Shumlin’s proposal to use the current use law as an enforcement mechanism for farmers and loggers. And he did so in a stunningly inarticulate fashion:

“I think that we know that current use is a very popular program, and it is a very expensive program. But if we want open land in Vermont its been one of those tools that has worked really well,” he said.

So wait. Current use is “very expensive,” and, in fact, Republicans have called for new limits on the program, but it’s “worked really well” and we can’t possibly do without it. You’d need a couple hours of pounding ’em back at the Capitol Plaza bar before that started to make sense.

The entire Republican response consisted of the automatic gainsaying of anything Shumlin said.

With one exception. Lt. Gov. Phil Scott released a statement that began thusly:

“I was encouraged to hear the Governor talk about economic growth. It was good to hear about the Governor’s support of research and development, especially after this important incentive was reduced last year. I hope that the Governor’s mention in his speech today is a precursor to a proposal included in the budget next week.”

Admittedly Scott sort of bent Shumlin’s message in his own direction, but look at what he did:

— He identified common ground instead of just saying “No.”

— He acknowledged that the inaugural address was Part One of Shumlin’s agenda.

A hint of politics, but overall gracious and inclusive. That’s the way you do it.

Signs of hubris in the VTGOP

Leave a reply

Vermont Republicans gained significant ground in last week’s election. But when you get right down to it, they’ve still got a long, long way to go. They didn’t field serious candidates for most of the statewide offices; they made nice gains in the legislature, but remain on the short end of big Dem/Prog majorities. They made progress on the back-office stuff, but they remain heavily out-organized and out-fundraised by the Dems.

And whatever made Scott Milne a serious contender in spite of a deeply flawed campaign with virtually no resources, well, can you bottle it and spray it on the next guy? Nope. I don’t think anyone really knows why Milne made such a strong showing, and I doubt it’s replicable.

My point is, the Republicans still have serious work to do. The VTGOP is not yet a serious contender — not statewide, not in the legislature. And already, there are signs that this whiff of success is going to their heads.

The most obvious sign is their eager acceptance of Milne’s reasoning for continuing the campaign into the legislature. Or should I say “Milne’s reasonings,” since he has a number of them on offer.

There’s the “ideological majority” notion, that lumps all of Dan Feliciano’s votes in with Milne’s, plus (I guess) most of Emily Peyton’s and Cris Ericson’s and Peter Diamondstone’s to, somehow, get Milne to 50% plus 1.

There’s the “incumbent rejection” idea: since most voters rejected the incumbent, that means the second-place finisher really won. In spite of the fact that more voters rejected Milne than rejected Governor Shumlin.

Then there’s the “legislative district” argument, which says that Milne won more districts than Shumlin and therefore demonstrated broader support. Which is obvious nonsense because many of Milne’s wins came in districts heavy on real estate and light on population.

And finally, we have the “there really isn’t a precedent” argument, in which Milne cites the handful of counter-precedents he can find — all of them emitting a fishy odor. The problem is, there really is a precedent, a very solid one; and when it hasn’t been honored, things have gone haywire.

In football, they say if you have two quarterbacks, you really have none. Well, Scott Milne has four arguments, but really has none. He’s throwing a whole bunch of stuff against the wall and hoping something sticks.

Among the people seeing through this are the two most popular Republicans in Vermont: Lt. Gov. Phil Scott and former Gov. Jim Douglas. Both have said that if it comes to the legislature, the top vote-getter should be elected. Here’s Douglas on VPR:

“It would seem to me unlikely that that would be a useful strategy and perhaps he should consider what Doug Racine and others have done historically which is to acknowledge the result and come back and fight another day,” said Douglas.

In 2002, Racine lost to Douglas by about 5,800 votes but since neither candidate won a majority, the vote went to the Legislature. Racine told lawmakers to vote for Douglas because he was the top vote getter.

… “It would seem to me that the good will that he’s accrued during the last several days ought to be preserved,” said Douglas.

I can kinda understand why Milne is sowing seeds of doubt; he came incredibly close to winning, which, in a way, must be harder to accept than losing decisively. (Gollum!) What’s harder to accept is that top Republicans like Don Turner and Joe Benning are grabbing at this logical apparition. Do they not, in Jim Douglas’ words, risk losing “the good will that [has been] accrued”? I think they do.

As they also do with their immediate call for repeal of Vermont Health Connect in favor of the federal exchange. They offer this as a serious proposal, but as VTDigger’s Morgan True reports, they haven’t worked out any of the details. Like how we’d make good all the premium assistance the working poor and middle class receive thanks to Vermont having its own exchange. Turner’s got a kinda-sorta plan for that, but he clearly hasn’t thought it through.

So why pull a half-baked cake out of the oven? The obvious answer is, to try to capitalize on the election results. And because the hubris is strong in the VTGOP right now.

Turner goes so far as to insist that VHC might need repeal even if it’s up and running when the legislature reconvenes.

Hmm, yeah, kill something that’s finally working after all the investment of money, time, and toil? Don’t think so.

The Republicans would do well to consider the letter and the spirit of Jim Douglas’ advice. Don’t get over your skis. Don’t, in the words of Gov. Shumlin, get too far out in front of the troops.

In renewing the war against health care reform, and in promoting the idea that the legislature should elect the second-place candidate, the Republicans show early signs of turning into the balls-to-the-wall ideologues we all love to hate in the national GOP. By now they should know that’s a recipe for disaster in Vermont. And it’s the opposite of Phil Scott’s alleged vision for a broader, more inclusive party.

A little diplomacy, a little statesmanship, might seem like a step backward right now. But it’s the best thing for the longer-term prosperity of the Vermont Republican Party.

We have our answer: Don Turner is a hypocritical opportunist

1 Reply

Or “opportunistic hypocrite,” take your choice.

To reset the stage, House Minority Leader Don Turner yesterday said he would vote for Scott Milne for Governor if the race goes to the legislature, in spite of a century and a half of precedent that lawmakers ought to opt for the top vote-getter instead of, as the Burlington Free Press charitably put it, being “free to vote their consciences.”

"Let me tell you about my unique personal definition of 'conscience.'"

“Let me tell you about my unique personal definition of ‘conscience.'”

To which I can only say, if their consciences lead them to any other conclusion than Peter Shumlin, then either they’re not listening closely enough to that still small voice, or their consciences are on the fritz.

Anyway, I speculated on how Mr. Turner had voted the last time this very question was before the legislature. Well, the answer comes to us courtesy of Terri Hallenbeck, soon to be late of the Burlington Free Press.

Turner acknowledged that’s a different stance than after the 2010 election, when the Legislature ratified Shumlin’s election over Republican Brian Dubie after Shumlin had a plurality but less than 50 percent of the public vote. That year, lawmakers also ratified the results of Republican Phil Scott, who received the most votes but less than 50 percent of the total for lieutenant governor.

Which means that virtually every lawmaker (including Don Turner) presumably voted against his/her political interests, and in favor of established precedent, at least once. Republicans ratified a Democrat, and Democrats ratified a Republican. It’s worked both ways over time. But now, Turner is pulling a brand-new rationalization out of his butt because it suits him politically.

Gee, I thought Republicans were the guardians of traditional Vermont values.

Or, as somebody who was on the short end of this Vermont tradition put it:

Doug Racine, a Democrat who lost the 2002 governor’s race to Republican Jim Douglas in a campaign that was also decided by the Legislature, said Democratic legislators told him at the time they felt compelled to vote for Douglas, who received the most votes in the election. “For a lot of legislators and for Vermonters it became about fair play,” Racine said.

Perhaps “fair play” is out the window for Republicans who suddenly see an unexpected opportunity to grab the biggest prize. In other words, they’re a whole bunch of Gollums.

p.s. We’re starting to get a glimpse at the future of a clickbait-oriented, post-Remsen-and-Hallenbeck Freeploid. Its coverage of Friday’s important developments consisted of two short articles from the Associated Press. Plus, those stories were pretty much buried on the Freeploid’s website, while more pressing matters — the LL Bean grand opening, a ladybug-infested house, a moose shooting — were given due prominence.

And the crudification of the Burlington Free Press is only just beginning.

Maybe Vermont Republicans have forgotten how to handle success?

2 Replies

Confusing little presser the Republicans held at the Statehouse Friday. Confusing in a couple of fundamental ways. They’re already well on their way to a fatal overdose of hubris; they’re toying with an ill-considered attempt to grab the governorship, or at least undercut Peter Shumlin; and they still don’t know what the hell to do with Scott Milne.

I wasn’t there, but I’ve been told that Milne was actually in attendance, but wasn’t invited to speak.* Indeed, even as they slapped each others’ backs over a relative handful of legislative victories, they “didn’t mention Milne until prompted by reporters,” according to VTDigger’s Laura Krantz.

*Note: Per the Comments below, multiple attendees say that Milne was not present. I’ll accept their word for it.

They “didn’t mention Milne,” the man who might still become their leader, not to mention the state’s.

What… the… hell.

Also, even as they were ignoring the Miracle Man, they were boldly announcing their plans for legislation to dump Vermont Health Connect.

(Let me just pause and note what a Boehnerian idea that is: promising a bill to kill a Democratic reform, a bill they know will never pass, just for the sake of some political posturing.)

Uh, fellows, d’ya think maybe it’d be a good idea if you’d, oh, consult Scott Milne before you make your big plans? Especially since some of you, at least, are going to do what you can to overthrow historical precedent and install him as our next governor?

Presumably, if legislative Republicans get their way, it ought to be Scott Milne setting the agenda, not them. But what do I know.

In fact, according to Seven Days’ Mark Davis, there’s been virtually no communication between Milne and top Republicans since Tuesday. Or before Tuesday, either, since they gave him damn little help during the campaign, believing (like everybody else) that he was a radioactive loser.

As for overthrowing historical precedent, take a bow, top House Republican Don Turner and top Senate Republican Joe Benning. Both of them indicated that they would vote for Milne if the race goes to the legislature, in spite of 161 years of precedent that says the legislature always installs the top vote-getter, whether it’s a Republican (Jim Douglas, 2002) or a Democrat (Peter Shumlin, 2010).

And as I wrote earlier, the last time the #2 vote-getter was installed as governor, it was the result of a dirty backroom political deal between the #2 and #3 parties to take down #1. Kinda like if the Democrats and Progressives united to block a Republican who’d won a plurality. So I don’t think the stolen election of 1853 is the kind of precedent anyone should want to emulate.

While we’re on the subject, Mr. Turner: when the governorship was decided by the legislature in 2010, did you vote for Peter Shumlin? If so, you are a hypocrite and an opportunist.

On the other hand, there was the current top Republican officeholder in the state, Phil Scott, saying that he’d obey precedent and vote for Shumlin if he had to choose. Leadership, boys.

Milne and Turner and Benning have devised a new interpretation of the legislature’s role, by saying that each lawmaker should follow the electoral results in his or her district. Which is a brand-new idea that happens to coincide with their own short-term interests. Statesmanship, boys.

Tuesday was the first taste of victory the Republicans have enjoyed in quite a long time. It’s been more than a decade since they gained seats in the legislature, and six since they won the governorship. This sudden burst of success must be terribly disorienting. It’s obviously gone to their heads, and not in a good way.

Hopefully they can regain their balance and learn to use their hard-won scraps of political power in a positive way.

The self-bigotry of low expectations

Leave a reply

This should be a very good day for Vermont Republicans in legislative races. It won’t be, of course, and therein lies the rub.

Earlier in the campaign, Lt. Gov. Phil Scott talked about picking up double-digit seats in the Legislature, putting a perceptible dent in the Dems’ substantial majorities. But now?

“I will be happy if we gain one seat,” [Senate Minority Leader Joe] Benning said. “It means that the Republican Party is moving in the right direction.”

“If we pick up one seat we’re moving in the right direction,” said House Minority Leader Don Turner, R-Milton.

Joe, Phil and Don, smiling through their tears.

Joe, Phil and Don, smiling through their tears.

Gee, ya think they’re reading from the same script?

The above quotes are from a story by Neal Goswami, published in the Sunday Mitchell Family Organ and produced as a (shorter) radio piece by VPR. (VPR’s website has the full text of Goswami’s print article, available without paywall.)

The Republicans are hoping for more than two seats. But they’re clearly trying to set the bar as low as possible so they can claim some sort of victory no matter what happens.

Which means that in their minds, it’s quite possible that the VTGOP will do no better than a token advance. And that’s bad news for the Republicans’ future in Vermont, for two big reasons. First, from Senate Majority Leader Phil Baruth:

“Pickups, frankly, would be pretty tough,” Baruth said. “Last election we expanded pretty much to the limits of what we could reasonably hope for.”

So, if the Democrats are at the theoretical limits of their legislative hegemony, why can’t the Republicans make a significant comeback in 2014? Especially when this campaign represents “a perfect storm” of opportunity, according to Joe Benning himself.

The ingredients of that “perfect storm” include the continuing perils of Vermont Health Connect, fears about single-payer health care, widespread anger over rising property taxes, a sputtering economy, and early signs of Shumlin fatigue among voters.

On top of that, there’s no Presidential or U.S. Senate race to drive Democratic turnout; the races for Congress and Governor are uncompetitive; and Republicans have failed to mount credible races for the other four statewide offices. (Sorry, Shane-O-Mac.) Democratic voters have every excuse to sit this one out.

With all that going for them, the Republicans will be happy with a handful of gains. Leaving them, still, in a very weak minority position.

And that shows you how far away the VTGOP is from being truly competitive.  There are a whole lot of legislative seats that are simply uncompetitive. There are too many liberal and moderate voters who see nothing attractive in the Republican Party — even when they’re feeling dyspeptic about the Governor.

Plus, the Republicans are at a huge organizational disadvantage. The Dems have a well-organized, well-resourced ground game and world-class voter data. They were able to out-recruit the Republicans because of their organizational edge, so they have strong candidates in some vulnerable districts.

And they have poured their resources into the most competitive battlegrounds, like Rutland and Franklin Counties. Because the Republicans are uncompetitive in so many places, the Dems can, as the Governor would say, “focus like a laser” on the most crucial contests.

Which is why, even in a “perfect storm” of Republican opportunity, the Democrats are poised to hold onto virtually all of their vast legislative territory.

And that tells you all you need to know about the magnitude of the task facing Vermont Republicans.

How to waste $142,000

Leave a reply

Two suggestions:

1. Get yourself 7,100 $20 bills. Scatter them in a big pile. Douse in gasoline, add one lit match.

2. Spend it on Republican advertising in Vermont.

Image from the RSLC ad. Or maybe from a Cialis spot.

Image from the RSLC ad. Or maybe from a Cialis spot.

As first reported by VTDigger, a national organization called the Republican State Leadership Committee has chosen the second course, pouring $142,000 into a TV/radio ad campaign for Republican legislative candidates.

They might have asked Lenore Broughton how this kind of big-money, old-media, carpet-bombing technique works. She spent at least a million bucks in 2012 on a TV/radio/bulk mail blitz attacking the Dems, and failed to move the electoral needle at all.

But the RSLC didn’t ask her. In fact, they didn’t talk to anyone in Vermont. Just ask one of the first guys they should have talked to.

Rep. Don Turner, R-Milton, the House minority leader, said he welcomed the media campaign, but was unaware of it until VTDigger showed him the ad.

So a D.C.-based Republican organization is running generic ads for nameless candidates, and they didn’t even consult the House’s top Republican. Somehow I don’t think the Democrats are too worried about this. Oh wait, here’s a Democrat now:

It’s just like in 2012, when there was a single Republican donor spending approximately $1 million here in Vermont. The VTGOP is just trying to bankroll their way towards relevance. It’s not going to work. Vermonters have already made it clear that the right-wing agenda has no place in our state, and they will make it clear again on November 4th. The RSLC is spending six figures on behalf of VTGOP candidates and that money comes directly from the Koch brothers and other insidious sources.

That’s from Ben Sarle, the VT Dems’ communications director. Now, naturally you’d expect him to say that. But the facts on the ground support his assertions. No matter what RSLC does, the Dems are extremely unlikely to lose more than a handful of legislative seats; it’s even possible that they’ll add a few to their outsized majorities.

But shed no tears for the RSLC. They’ve got money to burn, with a donor list that’s a Who’s Who of corporate America. In 2012 alone, RSLC spent some $39 million in state campaigns. So a lousy $142,000? That’s pocket change.

Oh, for your further entertainment, here’s the RSLC’s Top 20 donors for the year so far, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

Screen Shot 2014-10-10 at 12.45.55 AM

Mmmm, delightful. Big Tobacco, Big Oil, Big Banking, Big Pharma. Big Telecom. Wal-Mart. Gambling. The US Chamber of Commerce. They’re all there.

Inclluding at least a couple of Bigs that have been generous to Governor Shumlin: Blue Cross/Blue Shield and Comcast.

Huh.

Say, Ben, perhaps you’d best tone down that talk about “insidious sources.”

I guess I missed the memo: We’re taking Dan Feliciano seriously now?

Leave a reply

This doesn’t add up. Take one Libertarian candidate for Governor; have him launch a write-in campaign for the Republican nomination, complete with the public support of exactly one Republican of any renown — Darcie Johnston, a Republican who’s on the outs with her party — shake it all up; and you have a serious, credible campaign? 

Whaaa? 

Libertarian Dan Feliciano held a news conference today, standing behind a folding table in a public park, to criticize Governor Shumlin’s budget policies. Now, a Libertarian presser usually doesn’t draw flies; but this time, WPTZ’s Stewart Ledbetter and the Freeploid’s Terri Hallenbeck showed up. I’m not sure why; Feliciano ain’t winning the primary. And on the Libertarian slate, Feliciano ain’t pulling more than a small minority of votes in November.

Boy, with all this media attention, Darcie Johnston must be happy as a pig in its customary environs. 

And Ledbetter’s story brands Feliciano only as a Republican. It doesn’t mention that he’s the Libertarian candidate. Rather, it puts him front and center in the Republican parade: 

Republicans went on the offensive Thursday, a day after Gov. Peter Shumlin and a panel of state legislators agreed on $31 million in adjustments to the new state budget. 

At a Burlington news conference, Dan Feliciano, a write-in candidate for the Republican nomination for governor, characterized Shumlin’s history of budget management a “carnival of incompetence.” 

Ledbetter goes on to quote Feliciano, give space for comment from the Governor, and finally shoehorn House Minority Leader Don Turner into the final paragraph. 

So, “Republicans” is defined as a lot of Feliciano and a skosh of Turner. Only the latter is an actual Republican. 

In her story, Hallenbeck at least points out that Feliciano is, first and foremost, a Libertarian candidate. Still, she gives his presser plenty of space, tossing in a comment from Don Turner for a bit of variety. 

I guess the Freeploid and Channel 5 wanted to run stories about a Republican response to this week’s budget tweaks. But shining the spotlight on Feliciano? Good grief. I wonder how Scott Milne feels about this; he’s had to cut back on campaign activity because HIS MOTHER DIED THIS WEEK. They haven’t even held the funeral yet, and reporters are chasing after Dan Feliciano because, I guess, Scott Milne isn’t returning phone calls?

If this keeps up, maybe Feliciano will be able to get himself an actual lectern. 

Addendum. Lest anyone think I’m unfairly disparaging Mr. Feliciano, my point is this: Usually, a candidate has to show some level of real support before earning the media’s attention. You wouldn’t see TV cameras at an Emily Peyton presser, for example. It’s just strange that WPTZ and the Freeploid chose to give Feliciano this much attention. And anointed him a central figure in Republican politics. That’s the phenomenon I found worthy of comment. 

The curious incident of the dog in the night-time

Leave a reply

So yesterday, your top three Republican officeholders held a well-timed dog and pony show on the subject of Vermont Health Connect. Lt. Gov. Phil Scott, Senate Minority Leader Joe Benning, and House Minority Leader Don Turner praised Governor Shumlin for finally pulling the plug on the troubled CGI contract, but called for a thorough “scrubbing” of the process and perhaps the firings of some Shumlin Administration functionaries.

Standard stuff, and a sound political move. The Administration deserves all the criticism it gets until it delivers a fully-functional VHC. But what struck me most about the event was a conspicuous absence: Republican gubernatorial candidate Scott Milne, the party’s putative standard-bearer, was nowhere to be seen. Or, in Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s immortal words:

Gregory (Scotland Yard detective): “Is there any other point to which you would wish to draw my attention?”

Holmes: “To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time.”

Gregory: “The dog did nothing in the night-time.”

Holmes: “That was the curious incident.”

Scott Milne, the dog that did nothing.

According to a reporter who attended the event, the three addressed Milne’s absence by saying that they were discussing legislative action and Milne’s not in the legislature.

To which I say nope, not buyin’ it.

I don’t necessarily think they were lying. But I do think there are three possible explanations, none of which involves the imaginary line between politics and legislation.

First of all, a few facts. The CGI termination was announced on Monday, so it made sense for the Big Three to have a presser on Tuesday. And, according to Milne’s campaign schedule, he was in the Bennington area most of the day. So attendance at a Statehouse event would have been difficult.

But still. Milne is the head of the VTGOP’s ticket. Wouldn’t it have been nice to give him a share of perhaps the biggest single spotlight of the campaign so far?

I can see why the event had to happen shortly after the CGI announcement. But couldn’t they have, oh, found a way to work it out? Fit the presser into Milne’s schedule, or have Milne shuffle his? Or, failing any of that, have Milne there by Skype or videoconference? There were ways to make this work.

Back to my three explanations, none especially flattering.

1. They truly saw this as a purely legislative event and didn’t think of inviting Milne. That’s called not seeing the forest for the single tree of an ersatz principle. This was a great opportunity to present a unified front on one of Shumlin’s greatest vulnerabilities.

2. Milne was invited and chose not to shuffle his schedule. Which would be a political fumble of the kind all too typical of his nascent campaign.

3. The Big Three didn’t really want Milne there. Which would be the most damaging option. It’d be a strong indication that the VTGOP already sees Milne as a lost cause and a liability.

Take your pick.

The Democrats run something called the Coordinated Campaign, in which candidates contribute to a central fund that helps pay for all kinds of organizational goodies, like compiling voter data, managing volunteer activities, shared mailings and other campaign materials, GOTV, etc., etc. And whenever there’s a media event featuring Governor Shumlin, appropriate Democrats are part of the action.

At best, the Republicans are running an Uncoordinated Campaign and missed a golden opportunity to showcase their top man. At worst, Scott Milne is an isolated, doomed figure and nobody wants to be seen with him.

Early afternoon thoughts on campaign finance filing day

Leave a reply

First, a couple newsworthy Tweets from VPR’s Peter Hirschfeld. He reports that the Scott Milne campaign will report roughly $20,000 in contributions, and that Phil Scott will report about $50,000. Milne’s total is awfully pitiful; Scott’s still got a ways to go to catch up with Dean Corren, who qualifies for up to $200,000 in public financing.

As of 1 p.m., neither candidate had actually filed. Other notes:

— The aforementioned Corren reported just under $20,000 in donations from 862 donors. No single donation is worth more than $50. That’s an impressive show of organization and appeal.

— If you want a snapshot of the relative financial pull of the Democrats and Republicans, take a look at their respective House campaign operations. The Dems have raised a daunting $108,000 for their House campaign kitty and spent almost all of that. Notable on the expense ledger are salaries for two campaign staffers — just for the House campaign. (The Repubs, at last check, had one paid staffer for the entire state party. Might be two.) The Republicans’ House campaign operation has raised a paltry $12,000 and spent about 5K.

— Most of the House Dems’ money has come from two sources: State Representatives financially supporting a joint campaign, and corporations and their PACs. Big bucks from MVP Health Care, the Association of Vermont Credit Unions, the Vermont Realtor PAC, New England Cable and Telecommunications Association, and the Corrections Corporation of America (yuck), among others.

— You know which PAC has taken in more money than the Republicans’ House campaign? The Common Sense Leadership PAC, the brainchild of House Minority Leader Don Turner. He’s raised $26,000 for this cycle and spent $12,000. None of it on donations to House candidates. He has paid $2700 to consultant Shayne Spence, and $900 to Johnston Consulting. Why he’s wasting money on Darcie Johnston’s “expertise” only he can say. Turner raised $10,000 of his money in $2000 increments from two stalwart Republican families: the Vallees and the Pizzagallis.

— In the closely-watched State Senate race in Windham County, Joan Bowman has reported donations totaling $1500. But about three-quarters of that is from herself or her family. Bowman is one of four Democrats running for two Senate nominations in August: the others are incumbent Jeanette White, former Douglas Administration cabinet member “Artful” Roger Allbee, and newcomer Becca Balint. It’ll be interesting to see how much Balint takes in; from the outside, it looks like she and Bowman are in a face-off for the non-White, non-Allbee votes.

— Bill Doyle doesn’t have to lift a finger, and isn’t. He’s sitting on a balance of $6,500 from previous campaigns. He’s raised $100 this year and spent nothing. I think he’s rightly confident.

— Pat McDonald, the former Republican State Rep who’s now running for one of Washington County’s three seats, has racked up a noteworthy $10,000 in donations. She’s spent about half of that.

— Doug Hoffer has raised a modest $4400 and spent most of it. Well, he is essentially unopposed in his bid for a second term as Auditor. The bulk of his spending was in two contributions to the state Democratic organization: $1500 to the party, and $2250 to the Dems’ “coordinated campaign.” I guess Doug’s taking this “Prog running as a Prog/Dem” thing seriously.

— Former Republican Representative Oliver Olsen, on the comeback trail as an Independent, is raking in the cash (by House standards). He’s raised $5,700, and spent almost nothing.

— Who hasn’t been a candidate in four years, but keeps on filing campaign finance reports? Matt Dunne, that’s who. He filed as “not a candidate” and reported a carry-over surplus of $2,856.54.

— Former Democratic State Senator Bill Carris, who resigned for health reasons in 2012 (Eldred French was appointed to fill out his term), has liquidated his campaign funds. He had $9400 on hand, and distributed it to a variety of candidates and the state Democratic Party. Notable gifts: $2000 to Senate President Pro Tem John Campbell, $1000 to French’s re-election campaign, and $1800 to his son William Tracy Carris, who’s also running for a Democratic nomination in Rutland County, which has a total of three Senate seats.

— Perhaps the most active of Republican groups so far, at least in terms of supporting candidates, is the Green Mountain Republican Senatorial Committee, which has raised over $15,000 and given healthy start-up contributions of $1500 each to Senator Kevin Mullin and Senate candidate Brian Cullamore, both of Rutland county; and $1,000 apiece to Senator Norm McAllister and Senate hopefuls Dustin Degree, Pat McDonald, Joy Limoge, and Bob Frenier.

I’ll be watching the filings all afternoon. (What a life.) More updates later. Stay tuned!