A pair of stories in today’s Vermont press reveals quite a bit about political money in our state — particularly Republican money. The Vermont Press Bureau’s Peter Hirschfeld (who was a very busy boy yesterday) writes up the first conservative superPAC-style foray onto our airwaves; and the Freeploid’s Sam Hemingway explores the parlous state of the VTGOP’s coffers and how it’s whoring itself out for a little pocket change from the Romney money machine.

First, Hirschfeld’s happy news that a newly-registered PAC called “Vermonters First” has already laid down $70,000 for a two-week ad buy on behalf of — but not coordinated with, no, not at all, heaven forfend — Randy Brock. The new PAC’s treasurer is “longtime Republican operative” Tayt Brooks, who says the group is designed to counteract the “kind of one-party rule out there.” He doesn’t place the blame for that where it belongs: with a Republican Party that’s moved far to the right of the electorate and put together a bound-to-fail 2012 ticket.

As for which “Vermonters” are bankrolling Vermonters First… Brooks won’t divulge that information. He will have to file a fundraising report with the state on September 15, which should be entertaining. We’ll see how much of the money is coming from those Vermonters he claims to be putting First.

Hirschfeld has his suspicions:

Mike Schrimpf, communications director for the Republican Governors Association, wouldn’t say whether his organization – which spent nearly $1 million to try to get Brian Dubie elected in 2010 – is behind the PAC.

The $70,000 is just the first salvo, of course. If Brooks manages to tap into the torrent of conservative money coursing around the nation, he could easily close the huge (and widening) money gap between Brock and Shumlin. Which explains the seemingly inexplicable: Brock’s aggressive run to the right in the bluest of states. It was his only hope of getting a little rub from national big-money conservatives.

Thanks to our two-fisted AG BIll Sorrell for issuing the opinion that opened the door to big-money PACs — just in time to have one of them salvage his re-election bid with almost $200,000 in ad buys.

Meanwhile, as for the VTGOP and the Brock campaign, they continue to go begging for funds.  

The Freeploid serves up a reminder of the VTGOP’s role of money-launderer for the Romney forces:

The Vermont Republican Party suddenly has $5 million in its federal campaign fundraising account, but the money might as well not be there as far as statewide and local candidates on the GOP’s ballot in November are concerned.

That’s because the money is simply being parked in the VTGOP’s account until “Romney Victory Inc.” decides where to spend the money. And it almost certainly won’t be around here:

Vermont, regarded as a sure bet for President Barack Obama in the fall elections, is an extremely unlikely recipient for the funds, said Jack Lindley, chairman of the Vermont Republican Party.

Poor, poor Angry Jack. Water, water everywhere, and not a drop to drink.

Well, he is getting a slow drip in exchange for temporarily holding the moneybags: Romney Inc. is giving the party $20,000 a month for the use of its account. Peanuts by Romney standards, but crucial to a state party that, according to Hemingway, only had $22,811 on its books before Romney Inc. stashed its five mill there.

That $20K per month will pay the rent and keep the lights on for a VTGOP that can’t afford a single paid staffer, but it won’t help the party’s financially-strapped gubernatorial candidate.

Randy Brock, the party’s gubernatorial nominee, said he wishes the state GOP could send some of the money his way, but understands that isn’t likely to happen.

Brock’s first two campaign finance reports showed an underfunded effort that’s spending money on “consultants” at an unsustainable rate. Hemingway’s story gives a hint as to what we can expect from Brock’s next finance report, due next week:

“It’s very tough out there raising money,” Brock said.

Don’t worry, Randy. Tayt’s got your back.  

Hey, remember back in late May, when Randy Brock offered a sneak preview of his health care plan? His free-market alternative to the big-government, budget-bustin’, granny-killin’ Shumlin plan?

The one he’d been working on with the likes of El Jefe General John McClaughry and Tarren Bragdon, the man responsible for Maine Governor Paul LePage’s rather disastrous health care plan?

Remember that Brock said he’d unveil the full plan sometime in June?

And then, silence?

Well, Randy’s finally released the Kraken. In the weirdest possible way, as Peter Hirschfeld of the Vermont Press Bureau entertainingly notes:

We anticipated a glitzy, glamorous rollout for the plan, which is, very broadly speaking, a free-market alternative to the single-payer system favored by Gov. Peter Shumlin. Or at least a press conference, to draw TV cameras and front-page headlines, which he easily could have gotten.

Instead, “The Brock Health Care Vision: A 100% Solution,” rolled in unannounced to reporters’ inboxes at a time when many might have already called it a day.

Hard to make heads or tails of the strategy yet, but Brock obviously isn’t looking to make this plan the cornerstone of his campaign.

He also released it, intentionally or not, during a news cycle that’s going to be dominated by the fallout from the Progressive Party’s gubernatorial primary.

Hirschfeld’s explanation is the only one I can think of for this underwhelming rollout. Which is awfully damn pathetic, considering that Brock has made health-care reform — or at least criticism of Shumlin’s plan — a cornerstone of his campaign.  

At first glance, one can understand why this proposal might not look like a winner. It’s a lot like LePage’s, which has led to lower premiums for some (the young and healthy) but much higher premiums for others (the older and sicker, or those in high-risk occupations), and allowed insurers all kinds of regulatory leeway to offer really crappy coverage at relatively low cost.

Brock’s plan would allow consumers to buy insurance across state lines — because hey, it worked so well with credit-card issuers, who flooded the market with attractive-looking deals with all kinds of hidden costs and charges, deceptive interest rates, and unreadably dense terms of service. (What’s in your wallet?) Not to mention the big national mortgage mills that precipitated the 2008 crash by littering the landscape with bad debt.

He would also greatly loosen the rules on “community rating,” which forces insurers to bundle low-risk and high-risk customers into the same pool, thus leveling prices. As in Maine, loosening the rules would lower rates for the young and healthy, but raise them for the older, sicker, and more at-risk. (Lumbermen take note.)

The full plan, including all sorts of dandy conservative rhetoric (bureaucrats bad! Free market good!), can be read at Randy’s campaign website. Should you wish to.  

Well, the state canvassers’ committee met again today, and heard about a change in the final tally for the Progressive Party’s gubernatorial nomination. The revised total was 371 for Progressive Party chair Martha Abbott, and 370 for write-in “candidate” Annette Smith.

Smith picked up 16 votes from the original count, which had been certified by the canvassers on Tuesday. So what caused the discrepancy?

Faulty totals from two towns, Walden and Hardwick. Walden apparently underreported Smith’s total by 7, which was noticed by Smith supporters and brought to election officials’ attention after the canvassers’ Tuesday meeting. As for Hardwick, its results were initially faxed in to the Secretary of State’s office, and due to a combination of poor handwriting and poor fax quality, what should have been a “9” for Smith was tallied as a “0”. When Hardwick’s hard copy arrived in the mail, the discrepancy was discovered.

Smith has filed a formal request for a recount, as is her right since the final margin was within 2%.

At the canvassers’ meeting Director of Elections Kathy Scheele noted that “only a candidate, a losing candidate within a 2% margin, may…request a recount.” This was apparently aimed at Smith, who has not yet committed to actually becoming a candidate if she wins the recount. She has described herself as a sort of provisional candidate solely for the purpose of seeking a recount.

The big drama today was provided by VTGOP Chair “Angry Jack” Lindley, who delivered a harsh attack on the process and all but accused Secretary of State Jim Condos of incompetence and/or grossly unethical conduct.  

 Lindley sat directly across a conference table from Condos, but never made eye contact as he delivered a rather rambling statement in which he sought to remove the Republicans’ previous validation of the primary result. (The aggressive content and subdued delivery were noticeably at odds; Lindley has spent most of his political career behind the scenes, and I think he’s not used to actually facing the person he’s targeting.)

“The process… may suggest that there is collusion between the Progressive Party and the Democratic Party,” he said. “It’s hard to believe that one vote would be the deciding factor. And given that the other candidate [Abbott] has already withdrawn, we, we stand, ah, on the side of good party activity and believe the Progressive Party deserves to have this position filed for the fall campaign.”

Which is beside the point. Whether or not there’s a name in the Progressive slot has nothing to do with the conduct of the primary. But his implication was clear: the Democrats would prefer not to have a Progressive on the ballot, and pulled some sort of dirty trick to keep Smith one vote shy of victory. He has no evidence, naturally.

(I’ve appended the full text of his remarks below. It’s a wonderful example of inarticulate rhetoric.)

After the meeting, he told reporters that the situation “doesn’t pass the smell test.” When asked if he was implying collusion between Condos and party leaders, he said “It’s now  beginning to be a consistent pattern, whether it be the checklists and the validity of checklists in the state of Vermont, or in fact the counting of primary votes, and I’m very disturbed by it.”

Not sure what he means by “the validity of checklists.” I suspect he’s trying to tie this primary to the broader Republican theme of alleged vote fraud. For his part, Condos dismissed Lindley’s complaints as “strictly politics.”

Lindley has also reportedly thrown a monkey wrench into the recount process. By law, there has to be a five-day waiting period before a recount can begin. But if all parties agree, that period can be waived. (A recount of the Progressive ballots should only take a day or two.) But Lindley told VTDigger that the VTGOP would not agree to a waiver.

Which puts Vermont in danger of missing federal deadlines. Here’s how the situation was described by Condos and Scheele: The state has to deliver ballots to all of Vermont’s town clerks by September 21. If Lindley continues his obstructionism, the recount cannot begin until next Friday the 14th. Even if it were completed quickly, that would leave the Secretary of State only a few days to prepare the ballots, proofread them, send them to the printers, get the proofs back for final proofreading, get them printed, and ship them to all of Vermont’s town clerks by the 21st.

Lindley’s refusal to waive has nothing whatsoever to do with his accusations regarding the primary. He’s just throwing a tantrum. If somebody changes his nappy, maybe he’ll come to his senses and allow the recount to proceed as quickly as possible.

When all is said and done, this whole thing is interesting but essentially meaningless. It won’t have any significant effect on the course of the campaign. If Abbott’s victory is upheld, she’ll stay out of the race. If Smith turns out to be the winner, she’ll have to decide whether to fully commit herself to a candidacy. If she does, she’ll get the Progressives’ seat at the gubernatorial debates.

(Well, whichever debates remain. The first one is Wednesday the 12th on VPR. If Lindley doesn’t agree to a waiver, Smith won’t be able to take part in that one. Considering Lindley’s stated concern for having a Progressive in the race, shouldn’t he remove that roadblock to her participation?)

She does have something to lose in all of this, however. If she doesn’t come across as a credible candidate on a broad array of issues, she and her movement will lose some credibility with the public. And if her vote total is small — which seems likely, considering that her core supporters number a few hundred and the Progressive vote will be split between her and Shumlin — it’ll make the anti-wind movement seem insignificant.

And now, for your reading pleasure, we present the unexpurgated version of Jack Lindley’s protest to the committee of canvassers:

On behalf of the Republican Party, I realize there’s no signature required today, but we would withhold our signature on a process that we don’t believe is valid, has integrity, and stands the test of good — ah, good work. So at this particular point in time, my substitute had signed on another day, but at this point in time, we would be withholding our signature on the canvass committee.

We’re concerned that the process is full of, you know, not good work, and may suggest that there is collusion between the Progressive Party and the Democratic Party, and we find that to not be in good order, and frankly we’re very disappointed in the outcome and encourage the Progressive candidate to file for a recount.

It’s hard to believe that one vote would be the deciding factor. And given that the other candidate has already withdrawn, we, we stand, ah, on the side of good party activity and believe the Progressive Party deserves to have this position filled for the fall campaign. Anything less than that, in our judgment, serves no good for the voice of all Vermonters, and I must say that I find it very disappointing that we can’t get the numbers right the first time.

So if there is a process for us to withdraw the original signature, we wish to do that. If not, I’m afraid that we’re bound by signing on a canvass that was originally not valid.

Lindley was then informed that there was no process for withdrawing a signature because the revised count did not change the outcome of the election.

p.s. You may be wondering, what if the recount produces a tie between Abbott and Smith? In that case, the Progressive Party would choose one of the two as its candidate. In other words, tie goes to Abbott.

UPDATE: The Smith recall petition was filed in the Washington Superior Court Thursday afternoon, and it is anticipated that the recall will be held next week.

I have been asked by the County Clerk for Democratic volunteers for the recount. Anyone who wants to volunteer for the recount should contact their local Democratic (or Progressive, or Republican) County Chair.

Jack McCullough

The state Board of Canvassers has met (again) and certified (again) the results of the Progressive Party’s gubernatorial primary.

Take Two: Martha Abbott 371, Annette Smith 370. The revised tally gives Smith 16 additional votes, thanks to errors in transmitting the results from two towns — Hardwick and Walden.

Smith left the Secretary of State’s HQ as soon as the canvassers concluded their very brief meeting; she wanted to get to the courthouse before it closed, to formally seek a recount.

Meanwhile, VTGOP Chair Jack Lindley represented his party at the meeting and delivered a harsh attack against the whole process. He raised the spectre of a Democratic/Progressive backroom plot to keep Smith off the ballot. His conspiracy theory: Abbott has already said she would withdraw and endorse Governor Shumlin; if Smith is the winner, she might stay on the ballot (she still hasn’t committed to actually becoming a candidate) and presumably siphon some votes away from the Guv. Hence, the Dems have an interest in an Abbott victory.

More details on this later.  

That was the first thought that crossed my mind when I saw this photo:

Mitt’s 6’2″ (viz. Teh Google), so Randy’s, what, 5’4″?

The photo was taken yesterday during Mitt’s folksy little stopover at LaValley Building Supply in West Lebanon, NH (great store, BTW), just a hop and a skip from Romney’s debate-prep HQ, the $3.9 million vacation home of former Massachusetts Lt. Gov. Kerry Healey near Woodstock, VT.

So Randy got to spend “ten or fifteen minutes” with the Mittster — after first getting the full Secret Service patdown and then standing around LaValley’s waiting for Mitt to finish a series of satellite interviews with national TV outlets.

For that, and many other juicy details about what it’s like to be adjacent to a Mitt Romney “availabillity” (Mitt had no time whatsoever for the local press, who were shooed forcefully out of the store by Romney staffers), I strongly recommend Paul Heintz’ account on the Seven Days website. Fun stuff.  

Well, this should be interesting.

Today at 4:00, the state Board of Canvassers will take a second crack at certifying the results in the Progressive Party’s gubernatorial primary. On Tuesday, the Board approved a final tally of 371 for Martha Abbott and 354 write-ins for anti-wind activist Annette Smith. That’s usually the last word in election results.

Not this time. On Wednesday, Secretary of State Jim Condos re-opened the count due to “human errors” and called a special Board meeting for 4:00 today.

And he told the Vermont Press Bureau that Smith’s revised total will be “at least 370.”

Oh boy.

After the jump: Do I have second thoughts?

So after the initial certification, I wrote a diary critical of Smith and Co. for wanting to pursue the issue further.

Was I wrong about that? Yes.

I relied on the Board of Canvassers’ certification as the final word. That’s a pretty safe bet under normal circumstances, but this ain’t normal.

Has an election ever been re-opened after it’s been certified? I don’t know, but I wouldn’t be at all surprised if this is a first in Vermont political history.

I still believe that the write-in campaign itself was a questionable move: taking advantage of a low-turnout primary to hijack an established party’s nomination. If Smith does, indeed, pull this out, I hope she takes some responsibility for representing the Party as well as her own cause.  

Oh, great. A day after the Board of Canvassers certified the “final” results, and after Secretary of State Jim Condos dismissed any concerns about the final results in the Progressive Party’s gubernatorial primary, he’s now admitted that “human errors were made” in the count.

It now appears that the margin separating Martha Abbott and write-in kinda-sorta-maybe candidate Annette Smith is just a bit closer. It’s unclear exactly how much closer, but Condos says the tally is now within the margin necessary to qualify for a recount.

The Board will meet tomorrow to certify the revised count. After that, Smith can ask for a recount if she wants.

This doesn’t much change my views on the subject. Smith will now be within her rights to call for a recount, and it’ll be fine by me if she does so. But it would be counerproductive to her own cause if she pursues this much further.

And I still think that the whole write-in campaign was a wrongheaded attempt to hijack an established party’s nomination.

I will add one more thing: I hope that, from now on, Jim Condos is a bit more careful about making categorical statements about election results.  

(Thursday, Sept. 13)

My fellow Americans,

I just spent some time

In Vermont

You know, where all

the Gay people live

I walked the roads

And talked to folks

And that’s why I’m

Addressing you tonight

All that stuff

In our Platform

Is a crock of shit

I went to a Gay Marriage

We’ve got to tax the rich

Starting with me

The farmers gave me

Some herbs

And abortion?

Well, that’s up to

The lady

And war is stupid

And so is Limbaugh

We don’t need

Any F-35s

Now I want you to know

That I apologize

To gays and dogs

And women

I’m going to give

All my money

To free Mumia and Peltier

And fight to make Wall Street

Pay back the Bail-Out

Ann and I are going

To move to Vermont

And grow solar organic herbs

And that Buknatski guy

Who taught me to write like this

I’m going to do everything

That he tells me to do

So I’m sorry  I’m sorry

I’m soooo sorry

I was a rich asshole

Fraternity boy

But after my trip to Vermont

I have figured it out

And this is what all America

Should be about

(Hey, Peter, that rhymed–I’m getting good at this.)

And you can vote for me

If you want to

But I really don’t care

About that

I just want love

And justice and peace

And a trailer

In the Northeast Kingdom

With five cats and two dogs

And maybe a goat

And a pick-up

Up on cinder blocks

So Occupy Occupy Occupy

And gather fiddleheads

When they’re in season

And when poor people

And workers

Say they need benefits

And help

Don’t forget

There’s a very good reason

(Hey, I did it again.  Cool.)

Good night

Peter Buknatski

(We Wish)

Montpelier, Vt.

So the votes have been counted, the results certified, and yet Vermont’s Most Reluctant Candidate, Annette Smith, continues her battle for the office she isn’t sure she’s running for.

To recap: supporters of Smith’s fight against wind power threw together a last-minute write-in campaign to grab the Progressive Party’s nomination for Governor. And they nearly pulled it off; in a low-turnout primary with all the attention focused on the Dems’ race for AG, less than a thousand voters took Progressive ballots. The official tally was 371 for the Party’s choice, Martha Abbott, and 354 write-ins for Smith. A recount can only be conducted when the margin of victory is less than 2%. In this case, the margin was two votes above the threshold. So it’s all over, right?

Well, no. Although Smith has still, as far as I can tell, not decided whether she actually wants to be a candidate, she plans to continue the fight against, oh, I don’t know, the Jim Condos/Dem/Prog/Repub/Every Town Clerk In The State conspiracy that’s obviously out to keep her from winning a spot on the ballot and in the gubernatorial debates. She’s even talking about taking the whole thing to court — even as the state faces a federally-mandated September 21 deadline to finalize the ballot.

Their arguments are wafer-thin, irrelevant, and sometimes contradictory. It’s the “throw everything against the wall and hope something sticks” style of reasoning. Some voters wrote in Smith’s name but didn’t color in the adjacent oval. Some voters wrote in her name in the wrong party ballot or for the wrong office. More than 200 voters took a Progressive ballot but didn’t cast a vote for Governor. Some Smith backers somehow believe that their ballots weren’t counted.

Most of which is irrelevant to the outcome. And all of which comes across as more than a bit obsessive. Free advice to Annette Smith and her supporters: concede gracefully and take credit for almost pulling it off. Turn your attention back to the cause you so firmly believe in. If you keep hammering away at this, you’ll risk losing whatever credibility you have in the public sphere because you will look like crazy people.

Now, a few thoughts on the write-in campaign itself.  

Martha Abbott must be a very patient person. Because if I were the head of the Progressive Party, I would have been royally pissed off at a bunch of outsiders trying to hijack my party.

I’m not a Progressive (or a Democrat), but I have lots of respect for the Progs who have fought so long and so hard at the toughest task in American politics: building and maintaining a viable third party. And then a handful of single-issue activists swoop in and try to name one of their own as the Progs’ statewide standard-bearer.

Smith’s backers have argued that since Abbott intended to withdraw if she won the nomination, they wanted to ensure that there was a third voice in the campaign.

Okay. Let’s say I own a car but I’m not using it. Does that give you the right to take it out for a spin?

No, it doesn’t.

The Progressives built up their party through a lot of diligent hard work. They have earned the right to do what they feel is best with their party. A bunch of interlopers do not have the right to usurp the party label, even if it would otherwise go unused.

This is not the best of times for the Progs. The last thing they needed was to have a non-Prog single-issue activist become their public face. It could have done considerable damage to their remaining credibility. And that would have been a shame.  

Doug Hoffer, has been taking a look at  the way current Auditor, Republican Tom Salmon, has been using taxpayer dollars.  You might say that he has been auditing the Auditor.

What has he discovered, you ask?

Democratic / Progressive candidate for State Auditor Doug Hoffer said current State Auditor Tom Salmon’s $5,000 payment to his former political campaign coordinator for managing the Auditor’s online weight loss program is “a big, fat, waste of taxpayer dollars.”

It seems that Mr. Salmon, in one of his not infrequent lapses of judgement, saw fit to take money from the State’s General Fund to hire John Kleinhans (who is said “former campaign coordinator”) to provide an online coaching program entitled “Accountable to You, Accountable to Me,”  which was introduced in December of 2011.

The title is ironic, as this hire only serves to illustrate, once again, that Mr. Salmon thinks he need be accountable to no one.

Apparently it was the Auditor’s rationale that the program, which could be accessed online, would help Vermonters to set personal improvement goals, like weight-loss, smoking cessation or saving money.  

Once again Mr. Salmon seems to have been bored with his own elected position and was looking to move into a different arena of influence; perhaps the Department of Health and Human Services(?)

Accepting the assignment, Kleinhans noted, “I am really excited. This is a morale boosting vehicle where Vermonters can stand up and make themselves better and their communities better after a difficult year.  If we could find 1,000 Vermonters to save 2012 dollars for others, that is over 2 million dollars…It blows my mind!”

The hyperbole was somewhat overspent (as were taxpayer dollars) in this case.  Doug Hoffer discovered that, as of this week, the Facebook page created for the program boasts only 120 “Likes.”  As Hoffer notes, that is an average cost of $41.66 per “like.”

This is what happens to the Auditor’s office when a political hack comes to regard it only as his personal stepping stone.

Now, we on GMD have had a lot of fun with Tom Salmon’s clueless tenure in the Auditor’s office.  As he prepares to exit the office he has once again given us reason to smack our heads in comic disbelief.

Except that it isn’t very funny when so many in the State have had to make do with so much less over the past couple of years as it became necessary to adjust to lean times.  And it is a reminder that voters must think carefully what sort of person they want to occupy the Auditor’s office.

Do we want another displaced pol just marking time in the office until the stars align for his next political ascension; or do we want Doug Hoffer who has a genuine vocation for the office, and has been actively engaged throughout the Salmon years in providing the kind of focussed analysis that has been lacking from the incumbent.

I say this not because I have any particular dislike for Vince Illuzzi.  I do not.  I just don’t think he is the right man for this job; or that he has the necessary commitment to apolitical grunt work that is so necessary for the State’s longterm economic health.

I fear that his long legislative history may tempt him away from the impartial and dedicated focus essential to the Auditor’s work; and that he may succumb to the impulse to try and legislate from the Auditor’s office.

Let’s finally get it right this time.  We’ve had enough of distracted dilettantes.  Let’s put Hoffer in the Auditor’s chair in 2012.