Tag Archives: Phil Baruth

The Business Elites Expand Their Portfolio, and Other Notes from the 9/1 Campaign Finance Filings

3 Replies

Well, those Burlington-area business types have slightly expanded their playing field as they try to weaken the Legislature’s ability to override gubernatorial vetoes. They’d backed a handful of centrist Democratic challengers to Dem/Prog incumbents (most notably Stewart Ledbetter and Elizabeth Brown*, only to see them all go down to defeat. (A similar effort was made by Brattleboro businessfolk in support of an unsuccessful challenge to Rep. Emilie Kornheiser.) They also backed some Republican hopefuls with a chance to knock off Democratic incumbents in November including LG candidate John Rodgers, two state reps running for Senate, Pat Brennan and Scott Beck, and the uncle-and-nephew tag team of Leland and Rep. Michael Morgan, running in a two-seat House district currently split between the two parties.

*We’d previously noted that Brown spent an appalling $35 per vote. It was actually $35.42, for those keeping score at home.

And now that same bunch of Vermont-scale plutocrats is throwing their weight, in the form of four-figure donations, behind Rep. Chris Mattos, running for Senate in the Chittenden North district currently repped by Sen. Irene Wrenner, and Steven Heffernan, Republican Senate candidate in Addison County. (A district that, according to Matthew Vigneau, solid Twitter follow and bigger election nerd than I, hasn’t elected a Republican to the Senate since the year 2000. Which was the year of the great civil-unions backlash that saw Republicans win in multiple unexpected locations, so grain of salt required.)

I haven’t come across any similarly blessed Republican candidates for House, but I didn’t do an exhaustive search. Then again, perhaps these low-grade plutocrats have decided (as have I) that the House is a lost cause for the Republicans.

So who’s giving how much to whom?

Continue reading →

Who’s Spending: Another Look at Mass Media Filings

7 Replies

One week ago, I wrote about former senator John Rodgers’ five-figure spend for ads on WDEV radio plus other candidates’ investments in mass media. Several candidates have since reported mass media expenditures; here’s a look at the highlights.

Reminder: The next campaign finance reporting deadline is August 1, but candidates are required to promptly report mass media buys of $500 or more when they occur close to an election.

Let’s start with Rodgers. I noted that if his WDEV buy was part of a broader strategy it could pay off, but by itself it’s a questionable move. It’s a lot of money to spend on a diminished medium and an outlet that only reaches a fraction of Vermont. Well, so far it stands alone: Rodgers has not reported any more mass media spending.

The biggest mass media report from the past week comes not from a candidate, but from the Child Care Victory Fund, a political action committee affiliated with Let’s Grow Kids Vermont. The Fund is apparently trying to protect incumbent lawmakers who supported Act 76, the 2023 bill that made a “quantum leap” in child care investments, and now face primary opposition.

Continue reading →

Sooooo Many Campaign Finance Reports

4 Replies

Well, I didn’t really want to wade through all the campaign finance reports filed by House candidates on July 1. But there were questions I wanted to answer, so wade through them I did.

Actually, not all. I didn’t pay much attention to incumbents. I was mainly interested in new candidates. What follows is a daunting amount of detail, so let me give you some topline findings right away.

  • A lot of candidates, both new and incumbent, are having trouble complying with campaign finance law. Fortunately for them, the penalties for noncompliance are minimal to nonexistent.
  • There’s been a lot of talk about centrists running as Democrats with financial backing from rich folks and business leaders. What I found, to my mild surprise, is that there aren’t really that many of ’em. Hardly enough to qualify as a trend. But it is worth focusing attention on those trying to poach Democratic seats.
  • The Republican field of new House candidates is pretty much a financial wasteland. With a few exceptions. Emphasis on “few.”
  • One of the most successful funders of Republican House candidates is the Rutland GOPAC. But they operate on a modest scale, and aren’t likely to move the needle appreciably.

Okay, on to the details, whether you want them or not. But hey, this is a place for political sickos, so on we go.

Continue reading →

The Best Senator Money Can Buy

6 Replies

I guess Stewart Ledbetter is serious about this midlife crisis “running for office” thing. Because of all the campaign finance filings submitted by yesterday’s deadline, the former WPTZ anchor slash cromulent host of “Vermont This Week” reported a truly eye-popping $49,189 in donations — the vast majority in increments of more than $100.

And if there was any doubt about his centrist leanings, a perusal of his donor list would drown all uncertainty under a tsunami of conservative and business community cash. The Big Boys want to see Ledbetter in the Senate.

Where do I even begin? How about this: Ledbetter got big-dollar gifts from a total of 51 people. The average donation from each? A smidge under $900. And heck, if you roll in the 50 small donors, the average single donation to Ledbetter for Senate was a hefty $477.12.

He’s rollin’ in it. Can he buy a Senate seat? It remains to be seen, but he’s sure as hell trying.

Continue reading →

Darkness on the Edge of the Capitol Complex

Leave a reply

A good piece of political journalism will accomplish two things: It will explain what’s been happening and give you a peek at what’s ahead. VTDigger’s Sarah Mearhoff accomplished both in her recent look back at the 2024 legislative session, specifically the bitter divide between Gov. Phil Scott and the Dem/Prog supermajorities. It’s obvious that the rarely healthy relationship took a measurable turn for the worse in 2024.

The best bit — the Rosetta Stone that explains it all — goes back to the very end of the 2023 session, when the Legislature overrode six Scott vetoes. That’s a huge number. Overrides have been extremely rare throughout Vermont history. I haven’t done a deep dive, but I’ll bet that six is the all-time record for a single year. Scott comms director Rebecca Kelley called the veto session “eye-opening,” and Senate President Pro Tem Phil Baruth believes that was when the governor changed course:

“I think at that point, they had their own existential moment where they said, ‘We have to get super aggressive and go after these people,’” Baruth said.

Longtime Statehouse lobbyist Rebecca Ramos noted the “breakdown in communication” this year and added there was “just not a lot of interest in repairing it.”

Continue reading →

What Will the State Senate Be In 2025?

2 Replies

Time for some way-too-early speculation about what kind of state Senate we will have in the new biennium. To date, Sens. Jane Kitchel, Bobby Starr, Dick McCormack and Brian Campion have announced they are not seeking re-election. Sen. Dick Mazza resigned last month for health reasons, which brings us to five senior solons — in terms of lifespan and/or tenure — who won’t be there next January.

Disclaimer: The following post is based entirely on my own observations. There is not a lick of insider information at play. I do NOT have sources in Senate leadership.

By my math, the five retirees have lived a combined 372 years (average “only” 74.4 years, thanks to that 53-year-old whipper-snapper Campion, PULL UP YER PANTS young man) and legislative service totaling 158 years. That’s right, one hundred and fifty-eight, more than 31 years apiece under the Golden Dome. Also, three of the five are committee chairs.

This round of departures follows the seismic 2022 election season, when 10 senators — fully one-third of the chamber — did not return. That means fully half of the 2025 Senate will have, at most, two years of experience. In 2020, four senators stepped away (three by choice; John Rodgers came a cropper thanks to his own inattentiveness to the niceties of candidate filing law), which means that 19 members of the new Senate will have no more than four years of experience.

This, in a body that values age and seniority above all else, and normally consigns junior members to purely decorative status. It’s gonna be interesting.

Continue reading →

When She Was Good, She Was Very, Very Good…

2 Replies

Amongst all the encomiums that accompanied Sen. Jane Kitchel’s retirement announcement (“most influential legislator,” “tireless work ethic,” “encyclopedic” knowledge of state government and, of course, “legendary“), this comment from Senate President Pro Tem Phil Baruth stuck out at me:

“I have adopted a two-word mantra as President Pro Tem, and it has served me well: ‘Ask Jane.’”

To which my first thought was, “Well, there’s your problem.”

It’s not that Kitchel doesn’t deserve praise on her way out the door. She has served the state for a long time with notable distinction. It will, indeed, be difficult to replace her. The Senate is in for an adjustment period.

But adjust it will. No one is irreplaceable. No one is truly encyclopedic in their knowledge of anything. And Kitchel’s biggest problem was that she thought she knew even more than she did, and she acted accordingly.

Continue reading →

Final Reading Needs an Attitude Adjustment

6 Replies

Now that the legislative session (minus override day) is in the rearview, it’s time to address Final Reading, VTDigger’s self-described “inside guide to the Statehouse.” That might be technically accurate, but it was the glossy, gossipy kind of “inside guide,” not the kind that provides insight. More often than not, it failed to dig beneath the surface. Instead, it picked up shiny trinkets and held them aloft as if proffering precious gems.

I could enumerate, and I will. But I need to emphasize, up front, that there’s nothing inherently wrong with snark or cynicism or the occasional eyeroll or even barf emoji. The real problem is Final Reading’s posture of contempt for its subject. The legislative process is boring, don’t you know. It’s a real drag. It’ll bore you to tears or put you to sleep or at least make you all hangry.

Earlier this year, one of Digger’s staff reporters tweeted out a recommendation for Final Reading as — paraphrasing here — a newsletter for people who don’t like politics.

I’m sorry, but no. That’s precisely backwards. Final Reading is for people who are interested in state politics and policymaking and want to know more. The people who don’t like politics are not reading VTDigger at all, much less a daily precís of all things Statehouse. Know your audience, people.

Continue reading →

Team Scott Tries to Count to 15 and Comes Up Short

9 Replies

Ruh-roh, Raggy. Something has gone off the rails in Montpelier.

After several days of lobbying the Senate and slamming its critics, the Scott administration has asked the Senate to, um, postpone its confirmation vote on Zoie Saunders, the governor’s choice for education secretary. (The development was first reported by VTDigger’s Ethan Weinstein and later confirmed by Seven Days’ Alison Novak.)

You know what that means: They don’t have the votes. Which would be perhaps the most embarrassing failure in Scott’s seven-plus years in the corner office. He’s had vetoes overridden before, but that happens to every governor. These confirmation votes are usually perfunctory. Lower-level appointees have, on rare occasion, been rejected, but I haven’t seen any reference to the last time a cabinet nominee was sent packing. Certainly the administration didn’t foresee any trouble, considering that Saunders quit her job in Florida, moved her family to Vermont, and began working as education secretary, all before her confirmation was in the books.

Still, they should have seen it coming. What did they expect, when they nominated someone who’s patently unqualified for the job?

So of course the governor owned up to his mistake and BWAHAHAHAHAHA no he did not. He blamed the whole thing on “misinformation, false assumptions, and politicization” of her nomination by critics and opponents.

Which is a bunch of Grade-A Joe Biden malarkey. The criticism is focused on Saunders’ lack of experience in public schools, her long tenure at a for-profit charter school operator, and — at least from me — her nearly complete lack of any actual administrative experience.

Continue reading →

Pointed Questions and Jazz Hands

2 Replies

The Legislature’s Joint Fiscal Committee tried something different today. It didn’t really go that well.

The committee called a hearing that was kinda meant to embarrass the Scott administration over its utterly inadequate response to our crises of homelessness and affordable. Well, it was cast as part of the JFC’s responsibility to track the progress being made (or not) under Act 81, the Legislature’s last-minute extension of the General Assistance housing program approved in June 2023. But the intent was to put administration officials under a bright light and watch them squirm.

Problem was, said officials (including Miranda Gray of the Department of Children and Families and Agency of Human Services Deputy Secretary Todd Daloz, pictured above) came prepared with reams and reams of jargon. They filibustered the hearing. It wasn’t 100% successful, but it limited the committee’s capacity to ask questions. It also had the truly unfortunate effect of almost completely sidelining input from providers of shelter and services to the unhoused. On the agenda, the administration was allotted 45 minutes of the 90-minute hearing and three provider witnesses got a combined 30 minutes. In actual fact, the administration occupied an hour and fifteen minutes, while provider testimony was crammed into the final 10 minutes of the affair.

There were still some embarrassing moments for the administration and some good information from the providers. The hearing wasn’t a bust, but it was far less effective than it could have been.

Continue reading →