Just a quickie on something I caught over at VT Digger, by parting has-been/never-was/oh-forget-it auditor Tom Salmon, who, if you follow these kinds of things, never has a shortage of ridiculous things to say.

Given that “good judgment” is generally absent in most of Salmon’s actions, he chose to leave us on a high note.It starts of like “blah-blah-Constitution-blah-blah’, then jumps to a tired old “class warfare” talking point:

Any group trying to whip young people into frenzy over unfairness, in the name of the Constitution, is manipulating, especially if the result finds people skirting their responsibilities. This is not a time to blame others for the imperfections of a nation, but to foster and maintain accountability as American citizens.

Methinks that Salmon’s missed the big point that those he’s accusing of “blaming others” are those very same people fostering and maintaining the accountability he’s talking about. Not to outdo himself (and I don’t know if he’s just got great timing, or what), he channels Mitt Romney:

Currently, we have a nation where approximately half the people vote and half the people pay income taxes. This is a strange contract, or form of participation, since government spending in Vermont for citizens ($2.245 billion in 2000, $5.125 billion in 2013 according to nonpartisan VTtransparency.org) has virtually exploded in its efforts to serve the people.

At least he said “income tax”. He closes it out by wagging a finger at us, and implores us to think of the Constitution and make sure we are “doing our job” and “upholding our personal responsibilities”. Given Salmon’s abysmal track record, like Mitt Romney, it’s apparent that self-awareness is not one of his strong points. Nice knowin’ ya, Tom.

Not really.

You’ve heard about Mitt Romney’s “sedret” speech to a crowd of high rollers, in which he dissed the working poor and seniors as well as anyone else who’s struggling in this country? Well, I just came across this chart at Balloon Juice, and couldn’t help but share.

In case you can’t read the tiny print, the “red” states are the top 10 for highest percentage of people who don’t pay any federal income tax.

Oh yeah, those dirty rotten no-good freeloaders with their sense of entitlement and dependency on the federal government… IN THE DEEP SOUTH. Yeah, I bet Obama’s gonna clean up down there.

Oh, the irony.  

Look there, Sancho Panza, my friend, and see those thirty of so wild giants, with whom I intend to do battle and kill each and all of them… This is noble, righteous warfare, for it is wonderfully useful to God to have such an evil race wiped from the face of the earth.

                                                 — Miguel de Cervantes

A full three weeks after the actual vote, the Progressive Party’s gubernatorial primary is over. (Except, perhaps, in the fevered conspiracy dreams of anti-wind dead-enders.) Washington Superior Court Judge Robert Bent* has accepted the final result of the recount: Prog Party chair Martha Abbott 381, write-in Annette Smith 340. The judge said Smith and her allies pointed out a small number of possible irregularities, but none were sufficient to change the outcome.

*Aha! See! Even his name reeks of corruption!



But Smith who, until yesterday, portrayed herself as a reluctant candidate — or maybe not a candidate at all — now plans to continue the race as a write-in. That won’t get her a seat at the gubernatorial debates, except for the Kabuki theater event on October 11 where she and Randy Brock will debate an empty chair. Shades of Clint Eastwood!

In (finally, belatedly) declaring her candidacy, Smith said “If there’s a popular uprising out there, I want to give people a chance to express it.” Sorry to be a cynic, but 340 write-in votes does not constitute a “popular uprising.” She risks throwing cold water on her own movement, should she come out of the November ballot with a small number of votes.

(Actually, she’s probably safe there; elections officials usually don’t even count write-in votes unless they might materially affect the outcome of the race in question. There’s no point, and it’s just a waste of public resources.)

After the jump: a miscount, and a call for moving the primary.

The big change in the final result, by the way, was due to a counting error in the state elections office. As officials rushed to tabulate the write-in votes, one worker mistakenly typed in “58” instead of “5” as Smith’s total in Westfield. State elections director Kathy Scheele dubbed it a consequence of Vermont’s late-August primary, which left her with an extremely tight timeline to meet federal ballot mandates. As a result, her employees put in very long hours.

Scheele also noted that since Westfield borders on Lowell, she thought it plausible that Smith could have actually gotten 58 votes in the town. (One might wonder why Smith supporters, who very carefully reviewed all the tallies for any sign of error, overlooked this one. Methinks they were only looking for mistakes that benefited Smith.)

Because of this whole mess, and because of extremely close votes in 2008 (Salmon/Brock Auditor) and 2010 (the five-way Dem primary for Governor), Scheele and Secretary of State Jim Condos are now calling on the Legislature to move Vermont’s state primary back to May or June. That would give elections officials plenty of time to deal with any eventuality, and it would move the vote out of summer-vacation season.

It would also pound the final nail in the coffin of our traditional conceit that campaign season doesn’t begin until the Legislature adjourns. Which is nonsense, but we do love our traditional conceits, so it’ll be interesting to see if the Legislature takes up the issue. Considering its recent inattention to election and campaign-finance reform, I’m not holding my breath.  

Sometimes those Sunday morning talk shows aren’t all boring.

Take, for instance, the 9/16 edition of WCAX’s “You Can Quote Me,” in which Vince Illuzzi, Republican candidate for Auditor, said that if he wins, he might just hold on to his other job — Essex County State’s Attorney — for a while.

How long? He wouldn’t say. He did say he asked the Secretary of State’s office for an opinion on holding both positions, and was told that it was legal. And he made reference to his term as SA expiring in 2014, so he’s at least pondering a full two years as both Auditor and SA.

This was brought to our attention via news release from Illuzzi’s Dem/Prog opponent, Doug Hoffer, who commented:

The Auditor’s office has a dozen employees, a budget of $4 million per year, and a list of issues to tackle that is extensive. It is disturbing to hear that Vince thinks the State Auditor’s job is a part-time position.

I didn’t depend on Hoffer’s word; I went back and watched the video myself. And after the jump, I’ll provide my (unofficial but as accurate as I could be) transcript of the key exchange, which begins around the 22-minute mark in the half-hour program.  

Host Gretchen Carlson noted that he holds the position of State’s Attorney, and asked if he would continue to hold it if elected Auditor.

I asked the Secretary of State’s office to look into it, and the statute does allow you to hold both positions. Whether I hold it or not is another question. I think there has to be some transition period.

One of the things I don’t want to happen is to have the office essentially closed and merged with another county.

He then quickly pivots to one of his talking points:

But speaking of the State’s Attorney’s office, one of the issues that has come to my attention in serving as State’s Attorney is that law enforcement agencies, by and large, are not equipped to handle fraud complaints.

Carlson interrupts: “Before we move on to that, I just didn’t quite hear an answer. So if you’re elected, would you hold two jobs?”

I think I would for a time period until I transition out of that position. It’s a four-year term; it doesn’t expire until 2014.

Carlson, who deserves full credit for trying to corner Illuzzi, asked: “So how long would you…?”

It depends on the decision — there would have to be discussion with the Governor, with the Executive Branch folks who administer that department.

He then swerved back to his talking point about local police and fraud cases.

It’s a half-hour show and time was running short, so I don’t blame Carlson for not continuing the chase. But a lot of questions are left unanswered here, and I hope someone holds Illuzzi’s feet to the fire on this.

First of all, it’s very revealing that Illuzzi made his inquiry with the Secretary of State. Clearly, he wanted to know if he could hold onto both jobs.

Corollary: It’s an unusual enough notion that he needed to get official clarification. Which kind of belies his whole point about “transition.” Isn’t there a built-in transition period after Election Day and before the new Auditor takes office? Does he really see himself as so indispensable to the people of Essex County that another attorney* couldn’t take over as interim SA?

*Perhaps an attorney who doesn’t have multiple ethics charges on his legal record?

Next, what’s with this “apres moi, le deluge” stuff? Is there talk of closing the SA office in Essex County? Maybe there is, I don’t know. But does he really think that he, and only he, can save the office by continuing to occupy it, like those Catholics in Boston who’ve been continuously occupying a church slated for closure? Bit of a messiah complex there, Vince?

Then, as I noted above, he notes that his term expires in 2014, which says to me that he’s at least thinking about serving out his term. Which would coincide with the entirety of the Auditor’s next term.

And finally, I have no idea what he’s talking about with the “discussion with the Governor, with the Executive Branch folks who administer that department.” What department? And why the Governor? Isn’t this a matter for the Auditor to decide, based on his/her sense of duty to the office and to the people of Vermont?

Illuzzi should have had this figured out before now, and should be able to give a clear, forthright answer to the question. And the answer clearly ought to be, “If I am elected, I will step down as State’s Attorney the day I am sworn in as Auditor.”

See, it’s simple, really.

I just received this from State Treasurer Beth Pierce (emphasis mine):

Vermont State Treasurer Beth Pearce announced today that Standard and Poor’s has improved the state’s bond rating outlook from “AA+/stable” to “AA+/positive” in recognition of Vermont’s continued excellence in financial management.

Now what was Brock saying about the Shumlin Administration’s fiscal management?

 On last Friday afternoon, only 17 days after winning his primary election for Attorney General Bill Sorrell released a statement clearing a Vermont State Trooper in a fatal shooting death. State Trooper Dustin Robinson fired seven shots striking John Martel once after the burglary suspect ‘failed to respond’ or refused to comply with orders. There were no witnesses to the shooting other than Trooper Robinson, who says, as reported by A.G. Sorrell, that after being fatally shot Martel told him  “I wanted to die.”

The Attorney General’s ‘report’ cited medical examiner’s findings that agreed with the trooper’s (unwitnessed) version of the shooting death. According to the AG’s statement, the use of deadly force is justified when an officer believes that he is in danger of death or serious injury, and that deadly force is needed to respond.

Attorney General Bill Sorrell affirmed [Trooper] Robinson’s account of the shooting: that he opened fire on Martel after the burglary suspect refused to obey his instructions and twice pointed what appeared to be a handgun at the trooper. The object turned out to be a cellphone.

After the jump: Sorrell: "… that's a tall order"

This summer the Attorney General told Vtdigger.com that like all citizens (even suspects?) police officers are, of course, presumed innocent. But Sorrel added:

“To say a police officer is intentionally trying to kill someone without cause: that’s a tall order.”

A day after the April 30, 2012, shooting, while facts were still being gathered, State Police Col. Thomas L'Esperance said at a news conference "John Martel made a decision when he was confronted by Trooper Robinson …” L’Eperance could also have noted back then that the only other man present at the shooting – the trooper – also made a choice, as Friday’s AG statement makes clear:

As Martel kept making movements in his belt area, Tpr. Robinson put away his taser and took out his firearm, repeating commands to Martel to show his hands.

Suicide by cop?

A recent report exploring ‘suicide by cop’ say it has taken on life of its own and become a broad catch phrase with police spokespeople and the media. Theories about it vary widely but a former NJ police officer and expert on ‘suicide by cop’ who teaches criminal justice and has reportedly done extensive research says:

He did not believe they [alleged suicides] possessed full understanding of the fact that their aggressive actions would cause their death.

In this case, it seems convenient that the ‘dying statement’ of a fleeing suspect (whose death was caused by a gunshot wound in the lower back) was witnessed solely by the person with the most investment in hearing a statement that would exonerate him.

Questions:

How does a cell phone look like gun? If a cell phone can be made into a “deadly weapon,” who makes that app? What training do police officers get in identifying actual deadly weapons versus innocent objects that an officer’s fear may transform into the illusion of a weapon? How often is a trooper’s visual acuity checked?

And, btw, Mr. Attorney General, since when do police have the training to be judge, jury, and – in a state supposedly without a death penalty – executioner with the knowledge they will receive the ultimate blessing of your office? Do you suppose that if you even once had found an officer’s shooting of an unarmed civilian not justified and the trooper faced consequences, the next cop might have second thoughts before killing someone wielding a phone or a pen or a harmonica?

According to Mitt Romney,

47% of Obama supporters are dependent on government

.

You know, the stereotype that you are on the dole if you support anyone who is black, is a Democrat, and/or supports any progressive causes like gay marriage, equal rights, equal pay… well you know the negative Republican schtick.

All right, there are 47% who are with him; who are dependent upon government; who believe that they are victims; who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them; who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing – to you-name-it.

Mother Jones has the video below

New York Daily News shares the story GOP 1% donors want to hear. Priceless…

Okay, all the mid-September campaign finance reports are in. Aside from the numbers I reported earlier, here are the top stories:

Peter Shumlin leaves Randy Brock even further in his wake — and tops the $1,000,000 mark in total fundraising. The Governor enters the homestretch of the campaign with a nearly 4-to-1 edge in cash on hand.

Beth Pearce widened her financial lead over Wendy Wilton. And Wilton — a bit embarrassingly for a would-be State Treasurer — had to file a few corrections to her mid-August report.

Cassandra Gekas had a mediocre fundraising performance, leaving her at a huge disadvantage against Phil Scott.

Vince Illuzzi didn’t have a terrific total, and spent a lot more than he raised; but he still holds the money lead over Doug Hoffer.

As for Jim Condos… well, it’s his world, and we’re all just livin’ in it.

Deets after the jump.  

Governor. Another great month for Shumlin. He raised better than $160,000, bringing his to-date contributions total to just over $1,000,000. (That figure includes in-kind donations; it’s pretty obvious the Shumlin camp really wanted to get into seven figures. Just another way to say, “Give it up, Randy.”) His report included a cover sheet trumpeting that million-dollar figure and his very impressive $893,267.58 in cash on hand. He spent a bit less than $35,000 in the past month, and has spent a total of $127, 723 in the campaign.

As for Brock, he had his best month to date, but nowhere near Shumlin’s. Brock reported contributions of $62,420. His overall total — including a $300,000 loan to his own campaign — is at $644,270. And Brock continues to spend at a rapid clip; expenditures of $61,000 in the past month, and $408,000 for the campaign. If not for his own loan, his campaign would be in the red. As it stands, by my unofficial calculation, he has about $236,000 in cash on hand.

Brock wrote plenty of handsome checks to his out-of-state consultants, and a couple more big ones to his best bud, Darcie Johnston. She glommed another $14,000 in the past month, bringing her campaign total to almost $80,000 by my count. In about a half a year. She’s clearly the big winner in this Titanicampaign.

Lieutenant Governor. A couple months ago, when she was turning in an underwhelming finance report, Cassandra Gekas said her campaign had received pledges for quite a bit of money. Well, a lot of those pledges must still be unredeemed. Gekas had her best month, but that’s not saying much; she took in just under $11,000. Her total fundraising is at $23,000, and she’s already spent $16,000.

Incumbent Phil Scott, meanwhile, took in more than $33,000 this month, bringing his total fundraising to $86,000. He spent a lot of money in the past month — $43,000, including nearly $20,000 in TV time on WCAX and WPTZ. (The vast majority on WCAX.) He also bought a buttload of yard signs. In spite of this splurge, Racer Phil still has a 3-to-1 edge in cash-on-hand;

Attorney General. Sad to report, the Secretary of State shorted me. I didn’t get a copy of Bill Sorrell’s filling, and I didn’t notice until after hours. (I’d file a complaint, but it is Jim Condos’ world after all, and I’m just a squatter.) Jack McMullen, as I reported earlier, took in about $22,000 — almost all of it from a handful of out-of-state donors.  He raised a measly $342.50 from actual Vermonters.

Auditor. Doug Hoffer, as I reported previously, continued his slow fundraising pace. Vince Illuzzi, meanwhile, didn’t have the best of months, but still did better than Hoffer. He took in $8,350 in the past month, bringing his total to just under $60,000. He’s spent about $25,000, so he still has a decent amount of cash-on-hand. (He’s also getting a nice bump from Vermonters First, of course.)

One little tidbit from his list of donors: Peter Galbraith, your Democratic Senator from Windham County, gave ol’ Vince a thousand bucks.

Treasurer. Incumbent Beth Pearce had a good month, raising $36,400, which brings her to-date total to $130,000. Take away expenses of $68,000, and you still have a nifty $62,000 in cash on hand. Challenger Wendy Wilton fell farther behind in fundraising; she took in $15,000 this time around, bringing her to-date total to $49,000. Take out expenditures, and she is left with about $18,000 in cash on hand. That gives Pearce an estimated 3.5-to-1 edge. (Wilton is also getting a hand from Vermonters First’s current ad buy.)

Oh, and as I mentioned at the top, Wilton filed three corrections to her mid-August report. The total money involved is only a few hundred bucks, no big deal — but it’s a trifle embarrassing for the rough, tough financial enforcer Wilton claims to be. One expense of $50.00 was mistakenly entered as $500.00, an explanation of an in-kind donation was omitted, and the totals for “Contributions over $100” and “Contributions of $100 or less” were off by $100 each.

Also, I reported earlier that Vermonters First raised a total of $100,000 from a single donor, Lenore Broughton. Its liberal counterpart, Priorities PAC, also had one single donation — for “only” $10,000 — from Lisa Steele of Shelburne. Priorities PAC hasn’t spent any money so far.

There you go. Sorry about the Sorrell goof.  

The most eagerly-awaited campaign finance report of the month is in. The newly-minted conservative superPac, Vermonters First, made a big splash with an ad buy of at least $70,000 in support of Wendy Wilton and Vince Illuzzi. Today’s when we found out how big of a bankroll VF managed to put together, and where the money came from.

The answer: $100,000. From a single donor.

Give Tayt Brooks credit, I suppose: his donor is, in fact, a Vermonter. Lenore  Broughton of Burlington who, according to Paul Heintz at Seven Days, is a regular bankroller of far-right candidates like Michele Bachmann and Allen West, and is the moneybags behind True North Reports, the laughable free-market website.

Broughton donated $100,000 in cash to VF, and is also credited for “in-kind” contributions of $34,500 for “research and consulting.”

So. No big influx of national conservative money. And, since Vermonters First lists an expenditure of $98,200 on a media buy, it basically has no more cash on hand. Which also means Randy Brock shouldn’t expect a big ad buy on his behalf.  

Unless Lenore writes another big fat check.  

Big day at the Secretary of State’s office. Today’s the deadline for filing another round of campaign finance reports; there’s only one more pre-election deadline after this one.

It’s early afternoon as I write this, and only a few reports have come in, mostly not terribly interesting. Jim Condos, the extremely unopposed Dem/Repub/Prog/Families First/Prohibition/Whig/Etc, sleepwalked his way to a total of just under $5,000 in funds raised for the past month. Jack “Six Teats” “Not Quite a Lawyer” McMullen apparently failed to include a summary sheet with his filing, but I came up with a quick total of roughly $22,000 — almost all of it in big donations from out-of-staters. He raised a total of $342.50 from Vermonters. Wowee.

22K is a respectable total by Six Teats’ standards, but I doubt it will help him much.

Incumbent Treasurer Beth Pearce hadn’t officially filed yet, but her campaign issued a news release announcing a very nice total of $37,000 for the month, bringing her overall total to nearly $133,000, far more than challenger Wendy Wilton had raised — and a very noteworthy total for a first-time candidate.

Then there’s Doug Hoffer, the only other candidate to file as of 2:00 p.m. Not a great month for Doug.  

He raised $5,630, bringing his campaign-to-date total to $32,665. Vince Illuzzi had more than that a month ago, plus he’s got some PAC money from Vermonters First buying ads on his behalf. Doug barely managed to outraise Jim Condos, who (did I mention?) is running unopposed this year.

Doug’s total includes $2,000 from “Friends of Bernie Sanders and $1,000 from Green Mountain PAC. That accounts for more than half his total. He also loaned his own campaign $10,000, not included in the fundraising total.

The contrast with Beth Pearce is striking. Pearce is a first-time candidate, Hoffer assumed the tough chore of challenging Tom Salmon two years ago. Both clearly have the chops for the respective jobs they seek. So, why the hell is Hoffer doing so poorly in fundraising?

(To clarify, I’ve got nothing against Beth Pearce. I salute her fundraising prowess, and hope she wins her race. My wonder, and growing ire, is aimed at all the people who aren’t supporting Doug Hoffer.)

I’ll have more to say about this in the near future. For now, I’ll just say it stinks. And if a Democrat can give me a coherent reason for the obvoius lack of love for Hoffer, I’d really like to hear it.

More later today on the rest of the campaign finance reports.