In addition to several high profile endorsements, T.J. Donovan collected the Vermont State Labor Council, AFL-CIO endorsement earlier this month.

This union represents over 10,000 workers.  

The 2012 Democratic primary will likely see approximately 40,000 voters. Roughly 36,000 Vermont Democrats voted in the ’06 primary.  The 2006 primary was a typical year relative to turnout and had similar dynamics to this year’s expected turnout. A record high 74,000 voted in 2010 as a result of the Shumlin/Markowitz/Racine/Dunne/Bartlett primary. Don’t expect to see anything close to those numbers this year, however. 2010’s numbers were the result of several highly skilled organizations in combination with millions of dollars invested in grass roots organization, voter i.d., GOTV and media.  

This year’s voter turnout will be closer to 40,000 votes. Given the likely voter pool, a union that can motivate a few thousand of its rank and file members (or member households) is in a substantial position to tip the election. A bump of 4,000 – 5,000 labor related votes would likely be the difference between Attorney General Donovan or Attorney General Sorrell.

If the Vermont State Labor Council shows ballots-in-the-box muscle, it will also demonstrate immense influence within a contested Democratic primary. Tipping the scales for Donovan would have long-term political benefits for the Vermont Labor Council.  

The other endorsements show that T.J. is convincingly presenting his message to influential constituencies in the policy making arena.  This labor endorsement, however, demonstrates important constituency support AND, critically, ballot box influence too.

If it delivers to the Donovan campaign, the Vermont Labor Council/AFL-CIO endorsement is a huge opportunity for Labor to pocket a fist-full of political capital.

Update 6/26: VTDigger has posted a good story on this subject. More info after the jump.

The decision came down last Thursday, and seemed to be a rare victory for Vermont’s campaign finance law. Vermont Right To Life had sought to overturn reporting and disclosure requirements for political action committees. US Judge William Sessions dismissed the suit, prompting a brief and boastful press release from Attorney General Bill Sorrell:

The court’s ruling provides resounding confirmation of the validity of Vermont’s campaign finance disclosure laws and the state’s ability to address Vermonter’s (sic) concerns about the influence of money in politics.

It was so reported by the Associated Press’ Lisa Rathke, and by Nancy Remsen on the Freeploid’s* vtBuzz blog.

*My nickname for the new, “improved,” tabloidy Burlington Free Press.

But not by Peter Hirschfeld of the Vermont Press Bureau. (Update: Article now available for free at the VPB website.)

But while Sessions upheld the contribution limits in this specific case, he said that if a political action committee operates independent of candidates, and organizations that contribute to them, then the $2,000 limit would likely fail constitutional muster.

In light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in the Citizens United case especially, Sessions said, any limit on independent expenditures will likely be found to violate the First Amendment.

…The decision could open the door to increased corporate spending on Vermont elections, which have yet to see the kind of super PAC activity now influencing national politics.

After the jump: further explanation, and the health of our news media.

According to Hirschfeld, VRLC’s case was specifically tainted because it had failed to maintain proper distance between two political spending entities: its PAC, which makes direct contributions to candidates, and its Fund for Independent Political Expenditures (FIPE), which spends money on “independent” political activities.

VRLC argued that, because FIPE did not directly support candidates, it shouldn’t be subject to the state’s reporting requirements and its $2,000 limit on individual contributions. Sessions basically found VRLC guilty of sloppy bookkeeping — failing to truly maintain FIPE’s financial independence.

So it was a victory, but a narrow, procedural one. Sessions upheld the letter of the law, but he gave everyone a clear blueprint for how to circumvent its spirit. And that could open the door to more “independent” money in state politics. (And, as I pointed out in a previous diary, it doesn’t take a lot of money to create a strong presence on our political scene.)

This story is another example of how difficult it is to regulate political spending in a post-Citizens United landscape. It is also a rather astounding example of how shallow and unreliable Vermont’s news media have become. The Associated Press’ story failed to mention the broader implications of the ruling. The AP is the sole source for most other media outlets, including VPR, which offered only a brief AP rewrite in its newscast. The Freeploid, as far as I can tell, never published or posted a full writeup of the decision; its only coverage was in vtBuzz, an entry Remsen admitted was “based on a quick skim.” She promised “more reaction and analysis to come,” but it hasn’t come yet. Makes me wonder if the Freeploid has cut back on (or, as Jim Fogler would say, “improved”) its coverage of state politics. VTDigger, which does its level best with limited resources, did not cover the story at all — except to post Sorrell’s celebratory press release*.

Only Peter Hirschfeld of the VPB reported the full story — and his account is hidden behind a paywall, where most Vermonters will never see it.

Makes me wonder how many other stories are going unreported, or underreported. And with the economics of the business still in decline, it makes me wonder how much worse our news coverage is going to get.

*Update 6/26: VTDigger has now posted a full story on the court ruling and its implications for campaign finance. Recommended reading.

So far the only thing making this year a lively campaign season in Vermont is the Democratic primary race between incumbent Bill Sorrell and challenger T.J. Donovan for Attorney General. It seems every week we're seeing a new endorsementor position paper from both camps, and the campaign so far has been relatively substantive.

Still, while making his pitch for change, it seems odd that T.J. hasn't made a big deal of his latest policy position, which Jane Lindholm broke on Vermont Edition last week.

As you probably know, Donovan has made prescription drug abuse the centerpiece of his campaign, arguing that the impact of prescription drug abuse on public safety is a mandate to take both criminal and public health approaches to the problem, and to make it a higher priority than garden-variety nonviolent crime.

What was the hidden announcement Thursday? In response to a question late in the interview, Donovan confirmed that  he supports decriminaliztion of marijuana. You should really listen to the entire interview, but I'll just give away the surprise and let you know that about 24 minutes into the show, Jane Lindholm specifically asks him “Do you support the decriminalization of marijuana?” and Donovan say, “I do, and here's why . . .”

This seems like a big thing for Donovan, with nothing but positives for the campaign. First, it's going to be a low-turnout election, attracting mostly the core Democratic electorate, which is undoubtedly more liberal than the population at large. Second, with support from the State Troopers Association and the Sheriffs' association,  Donovan isn't in danger of being painted as soft on crime. Third, challenging an incumbent means he needs to be aggressive and make big initiatives to  gain visibility and distinguish himself from Sorrell. The decriminalization statement is just the kind of thing that should help the campaign.

There's still nothing up on Donovan's web page, and although my e-mail in box is full of his communiques I haven't gotten a decrim e-mail yet, but watch the news to see this story develop.

I think it's Sorrell's turn. 

Green Mountain Daily Community,

    You have a chance to help put right centuries of neglect of the First Vermonters. The Abenaki people of Vermont suffer from extreme poverty and have no land to call their own. Their culture is at risk of disappearing forever unless we act now. The Sierra Club has partnered with the Abenaki people and other groups to establish the first ever tribal forests in Vermont.

    Sign our petition today calling for the establishment of tribal forests for the Abenaki people by clicking on the below link:

http://action.sierraclub.org/s…

    Tribal forests will conserve wildlife habitat, and build and protect paths for animal migration. Additionally, the forests will allow the Abenaki to provide firewood for their elders, food for their families through hunting and fishing, and provide sources of revenue through sustainable forestry and maple sugaring.

Last month, the Sierra Club marched side-by-side with the Abenaki people and thousands of other Vermonters in Montpelier. The message was clear, through our slogan: Put People and the Planet First. There is no better way to show our commitment to our community, our history, and our environment than by supporting tribal forests.

    When you sign our petition, you’ll join more than 1000 other Vermonters who are already standing with the Abenaki people.

    The May 1st march, and the hundreds who have already signed our petition, has gotten our plan attention in Montpelier. Now, with your help, we can get this across the finish line.

    You can show your support by clicking on the below link and signing the Abenaki tribal forest petition:

http://action.sierraclub.org/s…

In Solidarity,

David Van Deusen

P.S. After you sign, be sure to “like” us on Facebook at:

http://www.facebook.com/pages/…

You can also see a video of an Abenaki tribal leader speaking at the May 1st rally at:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…

I’m not much of a beer connoisseur.  If I have 8 bucks, I go for a single malt scotch or cognac.  Then I have to tip at least 2 bucks.  Shit, as Harry Dean Stanton would put it.  But this isn’t about me or my ‘special’ tastes.

I stopped in Three Penny Taproom Thursday for its grand ‘expansion’ reopening.  And I flashed on what is wrong with Montpelier, and the whole fucking country for that matter.

They did a great job turning Three Penny into an elegantly comfortable cafe.  The new restaurant part is all wood decor, plenty of seating, plenty of space to move around, and good artwork on the walls.  A very ‘eclectic’ menu to go with the 24 also eclectic draft beers.  I says to myself, I haven’t seen an imaginative business like this in Montpelier since...forever.

This is the kind of place that people talk about.  And I’d bet money that this ski season word will spread.  Three Penny is the kind of place Americans go to when they’re looking to get away from the same-old same-old day-to-day drear that eats away at their pea-brains and causes them to say things like:  “What the fuck.  I’ll vote for Romney.  What’s the difference.”

The difference is in the imagination.  Wes, Scott and Matt won’t need a whole lot of luck to make Three Penny Taproom a showcase cafe in Vermont.  These guys don’t need luck.  They got brains.  There is imagination in the menu, the set-up, the old-fashioned barstools and wooden tables and chairs, the staff, and, if you look around, even imagination in the way some of the customers tip back a beer, as if to say:  “This is cool.”  And it is.

So………..WHY can’t the Town of Montpelier and the Downtown Merchants Association figure things out.  I mean, there it is (as the old Nam saying goes), right there on Main St..  Giving that section of Main St., from Rivendell Books to the NECI Restaurant, a kind of Greenwich Villagey feel.  A kind of beckoning away from upscale pseudo-glam with pizza towards a more thoughtful elegance for the mind and soul–with TWENTY FOUR DIFFERENT KINDS OF BEER THAT THE MIND AND SOUL FUCKING THIRST FOR!!!  Yes, you won’t find these beers at other places–not even in New York.  (New Yorkers, are you reading this?)  If the Town of Montpelier lets the Downtown Farmers Market move up that long steep hill to Vermont College, it ought to go to Matt, Scott & Wes and ask:  “Please help us.  We’re morons.  Show us how to do it.  Please.”

And, ON THE NATIONAL LEVEL, Three Penny Taproom shows the Corporate Reich on Wall Street and their Congress of YesMen/Women that some things just can’t be–refuse to be–co-opted or eaten up by the boorish Pig of Capitalism.  I suppose, Three Penny will be copied by other small entrepreneurs, but I doubt we’ll see a ThreePennys-R-Us chain.

Oh, all these Deep Thoughts are making me thirsty.  I believe I’ll break down and actually buy one of those beers instead of a scotch.  Three Penny is right next door to my office here on Main Street.  I can smell the beer from here.  It smells like…Victory.  Are you jealous?

Anyway, it’s a hot day.  A good day for a beer.  Beer as Alternate Energy?  Beer shot into the atmosphere to stop Global Warming?  Maybe when Obama’s on his campaign tour in Vermont, he’ll have brains enough to stop in.  He likes his beer, doesn’t he?

And YOU.  YOU check it out.  Do what I tell you.  If people had listened to me since ’66, we’d be in Alpha Centauri by now.  

Beer to power Warp-Speed Starships?  Hmmmmm…….

Peter Buknatski

Montpelier, Vt.

Here is a report about a recent study that finds life expectancy gains in the US to be “very moderate” and a five year gap between the wealthy and the poor exists. Data from 1930 to 2000 was used to determine trends and make forecasts on what the future life expectancy might be to the year 2055.

Among the findings of the Rice University of Colorado study called Stagnating Life Expectancies and Future Prospects in an Age of Uncertainty are the following: Average life expectancy in the US for a person born today is 78.49. Recently the world’s richest man Carlos Slim and others have called for increasing the retirement age to 70 or older. This average US age ,78.49, is lower than someone born today in Monaco 89.68yrs., Macau 84.43 yrs. and Japan at 83.91yrs..  

The study also found that gains made from the 1930 into the 1960’s have flattened out and despite disproportionate spending on health care the US international ranking on life expectancy continues to fall. Seems to me health care companies’ profits may have sky rocketed during this same period life expectancies were flattening out.

Also significant in terms of the growing awareness of US income inequity,

the most deprived U.S. citizens tend to live five years less than their more affluent countrymen, according to Justin Denney, Rice assistant professor of sociology, who was principal author for the study.

Professor Denny calls this “the ugly side of inequality,”

It is ugly and how about that 8.49 years of retirement?  

(In the interest of keeping abreast of this issue, I think the ACLU statement provides a valuable piece of the puzzle.  For that reason, I am straying from our usual disinclination to front page press releases, verbatim.

– promoted by Sue Prent)

ACLU-VT statement link, here.

Taser Shooting A Tragedy

One of the things the ACLU-VT has said consistently about Tasers is that they shouldn’t be used unless deadly force is justified. The death of a Thetford man after being shot with a Taser by Vermont State Police officers is a tragedy that demonstrates why we think this is important. A person is dead. An autopsy will determine the exact cause of death.

Tasers are not safe weapons. They are called “less lethal,” according to the manufacturer, Taser International. They are capable of causing death and serious bodily injury. They should only be used on a limited number of people, the barbs should not be shot at someone’s chest because of the risk of causing heart problems (we understand the Thetford victim was shot in the chest), and other risks incidental to the actual Tasing (such as a person crumpling and falling from the pain of the 50,000-volt shock and suffering injuries) must be considered before Tasers are used.

Between 2001 and 2009 “… there have been more than 400 deaths following police Taser shootings in the United States and 26 in Canada. Medical examiners have ruled that a Taser was a cause, contributing factor, or could not be ruled out in more than 30 of those deaths.” That’s according to an Oct. 21, 2009 article in the Arizona Republic, a newspaper that has followed closely the manufacturer’s success in selling the weapons to police departments, and the track record of the weapons.

The Thetford incident may also demonstrate why Tasers should not be used by police unless all officers have received ongoing, up-to-date training, and rigorous policies are in place for Taser use. These policies should not be cookie-cutter policies produced by insurance carriers, but policies that provide sound, informed police guidance and protection for the public. People can die if policies aren’t sound, and rigorously followed. Lawsuits are inevitable.

A Montpelier Taser Study Committee – formed by the city council when police there wanted to arm officers with Tasers – determined that the weapon is of limited use if the warnings issued by the manufacturer are followed.

It reached this conclusion by looking first at the warnings. Those warnings include that:

Tasers should only be used on “a very limited group of people” (not on people who are “physically infirm, elderly, or pregnant; suffering from drug effects, alcohol effects, or cardiac disease; in mental health distress; and suffering one of a long list of pre-existing conditions”).

Tasers should not be shot at someone’s chest, because of the risk of causing an “adverse cardiac event.” They should also not be shot at someone’s head, throat, eyes, and any pre-existing injury areas.

Taser use creates other risks, including serious injury or death, to people “who could fall and hit their heads, are on an elevated area, are restrained, are anywhere near a knife, are in motion, or are in water.”

“When all the cautions, prohibitions and limitations are accounted for,” the report concluded, “it is apparent that a Taser may only be discharged against a healthy, sober, rational, and clear-headed nonelderly adult who is not pregnant, running, nor in a dangerous environment, and that the device must be capable of being reliably aimed at the abdomen or the back.”

Complicating all this, the report noted, “is the fact that Tasers have a high potential for erroneous deployment, with the possibility of tragic consequences. That is because an officer in the field, managing difficult circumstances, simply cannot know enough to know if it is safe to use a Taser.” Further is “the fact that the probes from a Taser cannot be aimed as precisely as a gun or pepperball launcher, because the Taser probes move further apart as the distance they fly increases, at the rate of one foot for every seven feet of travel. This difficulty in accurate aiming means it is exceedingly difficult in the field to avoid hitting the prohibited areas of the body.”

Police officers face difficult situations every day. It’s the public’s job to make sure officers are fully trained and well-managed, and that they discharge their duties as responsibly as possible so public safety, for everyone, can be maintained.

The ACLU’s sympathies go out to the family of the victim, his friends, and acquaintances. We, like others, await the results of the investigation into this tragic incident.

Links to the Montpelier Taser Study Committee report, as well as other resources, can be found on the ACLU Web site at http://acluvt.org/issues/tasers/index.php

The Vermont State Police have issued a press release with further details about last night’s taser incident in Thetford. See the full text below the fold…

Colonel Thomas L’Esperance, Director of the Vermont State Police, provided the following statement at a press conference which was held at the Department of Public Safety Headquarter building in Waterbury earlier today:

On June 20th, 2012 at approximately 1511 hours, Troopers from the Vermont State Police Bradford Barracks were contacted by an Intake Crisis Technician at Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center regarding a person that was reportedly suicidal.  That person called the hospital threatening to harm and kill himself and others, it was also reported that the person had weapons and was prepared to use them.  The person was identified as 39 year old Macadam Mason.        

Three Troopers from the Bradford Barracks initially responded to a residence, located at 1100 Sawnee Bean Road in the Town of Thetford.  The Troopers saw Mr. Mason inside the residence through a window and knocked on the door and asked him to come out and speak with them.  Mr. Mason was uncooperative and refused to comply with the Troopers request to speak with them.  The Troopers remained at the residence and called a family member of Mr. Mason asking if the family member could respond to the area to provide the Troopers with recent history of Mr. Mason that could aid in deescalating Mr. Mason.  When Mr. Mason’s family member arrived, Mr. Mason ran from the residence into a wooded area behind the residence.  Troopers called for medical personnel to come to the area to be available to assist if there assistance was needed. A Vermont State Police K-9 was also called in to assist with the search for Mr. Mason.      

A couple hours later Mr. Mason returned to his residence and was addressed by a Trooper and several verbal commands were directed at him, which he refused to comply with.  The Trooper noticed that Mr. Mason was unarmed, unarmed,  therefore he lowered his weapon and drew his taser.  The Trooper ordered Mr. Mason on the ground and Mr. Mason lowered to a squatting position, the Trooper continued to tell  Mr. Mason to get on his stomach, at which time Mr. Mason stood up and moved toward the Trooper with a closed fist yelling aggressively at the Trooper.  Mr. Mason and the Trooper were now less than ten feet from one another.  The Trooper continued with verbal commands for Mr. Mason to get on the ground, and after several failed attempts for Mr. Mason to comply, the Trooper deployed his taser, striking Mr. Mason in the chest.   Mr. Mason went to the ground and the Trooper immediately rendered first aid as he observed Mr. Mason was unresponsive.  The Trooper administered CPR and continued so until Rescue personnel took over the care of Mr. Mason and transported him via ambulanced to Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center in Lebanon, NH, where he was pronounced dead at the hospital.  

Several Vermont State Police Investigators from outside the area were contacted to conduct an  investigation.  The completed investigation will be forwarded to both the Orange County State’s Attorney and the Attorney General Office for review.  The name of the Trooper involved in this incident is being withheld for a 24 hour period, per policy of the Vermont State Police.

The autopsy is scheduled for 1:00pm today at the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner’s Office in Concord, NH.  Results of the autopsy information are not under the jurisdiction of the State of Vermont, as that portion of the investigation will be directed by the authorities of the New Hampshire Medical Examiner’s Office.

No further information is available at this time.      

###

Oh boy. I took one look at my Times Argus this morning, and my mind immediately started writing the Republican press release that’s sure to come. If it hasn’t already.

Top story, from Peter Hirscfeld at the Vermont Press Bureau: “Democrats hire firm to dig into Brock’s past.”

Yep, the “name callers who dwell in the bowels of the Vermont Democratic Party” (quoth Jack Lindley) are at work again, looking for ways to destroy Randy Brock, Pure And Blameless Scion of the Green Mountains.

Er, yes and no. What the VT Dems actually did was hire an opposition-research firm to look into Randy Brock’s official past. Stanford Campaigns has filed a public-records request for information on Brock’s term as state Auditor in 2005-06. They are not, as far as we can tell, looking into Brock’s school report cards or nightlife proclivities. They aren’t sending out an army of trench-coated private dicks or dumpster-diving behind Brock’s house. The headline “dig into Brock’s past” is inflammatory and misleading, and is perfect fodder for a Republican howl of protest.

Oppo, for those just entering the 21st Century, has become a standard part of political campaigns. Shumlin hired the same firm to probe Brian Dubie in 2010 — that is, Dubie’s public and official record, not his personal life. Given that the Brock campaign has hired a bunch of high-powered right-wing campaign consultants, I’m sure they’re doing the same on Shumlin. Unless they’ve decided to save some bucks by simply borrowing Brian Dubie’s oppo files from 2010.  

Hirschfeld does Stanford Campaigns a big favor by extensively quoting its own puffery on how important and effective it was in 2010. I guess this is his way of inflating the importance of his “scoop.” On its website, Stanford claims a huge share of the credit for Shumlin’s victory over Dubie:

“The polls had Shumlin behind by 6 points, meaning he had to make up ground when every other Democrat in the country was just trying to hold ground,” the site says.


…”After two weeks of comparative television ads [based on Stanford material], Dubie had dropped 8 points as Shumlin established a slim lead that he held onto even as the bottom dropped out for Democrats across the country.”

Well, maybe. I don’t really recall it that way, and I imagine a lot of that is Stanford propaganda. In fact, since Stanford only works for Democrats, Stanford probably did oppo for a lot of those 2010 losers as well, and it didn’t do them any good.

In any case, VT Dem Chair Jake Perkinson draws the appropriate line regarding opposition research:

“I think there’s a big difference between pointing out deficiencies that an opponent might have … and slinging mud,” Perkinson said. “When you get into the realm of misleading or omitting important information, I think that qualifies as negative campaigning, and I don’t think that has a place in Vermont. I do think there’s a place for pointing out flaws in an opposing candidate.”

That’s exactly where the line should be drawn. If the flaws and deficiencies arise from a candidate’s public service, then they are fair game. And the Shumlin campaign is simply conducting due diligence by examining Randy Brock’s public record.

I realize that a newspaper has to put something on top of the front page every day… but as front-page stories go, this one’s a nothingburger.  

Thanks to Morgan and Kestrel 9000 for pointing me to this story from today's Burlington Free Press:

 Vermont State Police say a man has died after being tased by a trooper during a confrontation Wednesday afternoon in Bradford.

 http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/article/20120621/news07/120621011/vermont-man-dies-after-being-tased-by-trooper

It happened yesterday, and the State Police responded to a call indicating that someone was suicidal and was threatening to harm himself or others.

 Troopers arrived with guns drawn but switched from guns to the “less lethal” Taser. The story has it that the man was “advanc[ing] in the trooper's direction”, although there was no indication that he had a weapon or attempted to assault the trooper.

 The autopsy is supposed to be done today, but I think we can all be glad that the state police were there to prevent this man from harming himself.

So I'm just curious: since the initial call came from Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, and since the victim was supposedly suicidal, what protection will mental patients at Central Vermont Hospital in Berliln have once the Berlin police get their Tasers?