Vermont’s unofficial campaign season won’t begin for several more weeks. But a shadow campaign has been in full swing for months, contested by deep-pocketed groups that disclose little or nothing about themselves. Oh, they don’t call it campaigning; they call it “issue advocacy.” But they are clearly trying to influence public debate on some of the biggest issues facing Vermont.

The groups are:

— Bruce Lisman’s Campaign for Vermont (CFV), which promotes a variety of conservative issues.

— Vermonters for Health Care Freedom (VHCF), which opposes Governor Shumlin’s health care reform plan.

— Wake Up Opt Out (WU), which opposes the use of “smart meters” for residential utility customers.

— Energize Vermont (EV), which opposes large-scale wind power.

These groups can operate with little or no public disclosure. We don’t know where they get their money*, how much they’ve got, or how much they’re spending. They are regulated under IRS rules, not campaign finance law; their only reporting requirements are to the IRS, and that’s based on the tax year, not the campaign season. Which means that they won’t have to report anything about 2012 until April 2013, long after this year’s elections.

*With the exception of CFV; Lisman has volunteered that so far, he’s the sole source of its money. He won’t say how much he’s given or how it’s been spent. Ironic, for a guy who trumpets transparency as one of his core issues.

The four groups can be considered as two like-minded pairs.  

1. Campaign for Vermont and Vermonters for Health Care Freedom.

Both are 501c4’s, “social welfare organizations” under IRS rules. Contributions are not tax-deductible*. They are allowed to engage in some political activities, but that is not meant to be their primary focus.

*Due to my own misreading of IRS regs, I previously wrote that Lisman was getting a tax deduction on donations to his own group. He is not. I apologize for the error.

These groups are spending heavily, promoting key Republican issues well in advance of of campaign season. According to Andy Bromage in Seven Days, Lisman’s CFV has been running 10-12 commercials per day for three months on Vermont’s two biggest news/talk stations — WVMT-AM in Colchester and WDEV-FM/AM in Waterbury. WDEV’s Eric Michaels told Bromage the ad buys are very unusual.

It’s not uncommon for advocacy groups to buy up huge blocks of airtime in the days or weeks ahead of a controversial vote, such as same-sex marriage or Vermont Yankee, Michaels says. What’s different about Campaign for Vermont, he says, is how sustained it is, stretching uninterrupted over a period of months.

VHCF is making its own extensive buys on radio and television; this alleged “social welfare organization” acting as a stalking horse for Randy Brock’s gubernatorial campaign, which is certain to make health care reform its primary issue. It’s purely coincidence, we’re sure, that VHCF founder Darcie Johnston is a longtime Brock adviser and recently left VHCF to take a role in Brock’s campaign.

Political analyst (and Vermont Pundit Laureate) Eric Davis, speaking recently on WDEV’s Mark Johnson Show, said he expects CFV and VHCF to “come as close to the line as they possibly can, and a lot of Randy Brock’s message will come from those groups.” And, “as long as they don’t actually say the words ‘Vote for Randy Brock,’ it’s legal.”

It’s also legal for them to fundraise in secret, a fact touted by Jeff Wennberg, the new head of VHCF, according to the Vermont Press Bureau:  

Would-be donors worried about being outed as single-payer opponents need not worry.   Since VHCF is a 501(c)(4) nonprofit, Wennberg says, “there is no limit on the amount an individual or corporation can contribute and all donations are kept confidential by law.”

Some have called for disclosure requirements on 501c4s. This would certainly be one way to shine some light on this very dark, and growing, area of political activity. But some argue against such requirements. Why? Try this example.  Let’s say you’re an employee at Vermont Yankee who supports the Sierra Club, a 501c4. You might highly value the ability to conceal your support from your employer.

Opponents of disclosure say there’s a simpler way: enforce current IRS regulations. In recent years, some 501c4s have gone very overtly into politics, in ways that should imperil their status. They may be about to experience some pushback.

…the IRS has sent detailed questionnaires to several Tea Party organizations — and possibly other political groups — to determine if they truly qualify for the 501c4 designation intended for groups whose exclusive purpose is to promote social welfare.

…The tax code requires 501c4 groups to be operated “exclusive” for social welfare purposes – -which does not include intervention in political campaigns. The IRS has allowed the groups to engage in political activity as long as it was not therir primary purpose. But for many of these groups, it’s hard to see what other purpose they could possibly have.

If the IRS enforced the rules, the political 501c4s would have to change direction or convert to 527 status, which allows political activity but does require disclosure.

In the meantime, though, we have two 501c4’s engaging in extensive political activity.  While we await possible IRS action — and it’s already getting a lot of partisan blowback for “harassing” conservative groups, which is likely to discourage any real crackdown — CFV and VHCF are playing significant roles in bolstering the Vermont Republican Party.  

One more thing. Plans are afoot for another Vermont-based 501c4, this one promoting a left/progressive agenda — a liberal alternative to CFV, you might say. As a c4, it would be operate without disclosure of funding or expenditures, except under IRS rules. That’s about all we can tell you right now, except to note that certain domain names have already been registered and a rudimentary website established. Expect more details in the near future.

2. Energize Vermont and Wake Up Opt Out.

EV is a 501c3, a charitable organization. Donations are tax-deductible. 501c3s are allowed to do a limited amount of lobbying and issue advocacy, but their primary efforts should be charitable. 501c3s, like c4s, are subject to IRS reporting requirements, not campaign rules and laws.

WU is neither, according to its campaign manager Jesse Mayhew. He describes it as a “nascent organization” that doesn’t yet have a structure. But in spite of its “nascent” status, it has mounted an extensive advertising and advocacy campaign against smart meters. Mayhew says that 100% of its funding comes from within Vermont, but will say no more. And Mayhew’s is the only name publicly associated with the group; he’s unwilling to provide other names or even a membership count. (EV does list eight Vermonters on its governing board; all are from the Rutland area near the site of the proposed Ira wind farm, which was tabled in 2010.)

These groups have many things in common.

1. They both oppose “green” energy projects: large-scale wind power and smart meters.

2. Both have made significant strides in advancing their viewpoints. On Town Meeting Day, several communities approved resolutions opposed to smart meters. EV has been a significant player in developing opposition to large-scale wind projects.

3. Both have managed to create significant splits in the left/enviro community. Which is an accomplishment that any pro-industry group would envy.

4. Both claim to be grassroots Vermont organizations, but both are headed by Massachusetts PR consultants who are partners in the same communications firm: Mayhew of WU and Lukas Snelling of EV. Their firm specializes in “green” image-building for corporations.

5.  Neither discloses any information about funding or expenditures.

6. Because of this lack of disclosure, it’s difficult to evaluate their arguments. Some of their reasoning strikes me as plausible; some, frankly, does not. (One example: WU’s contention that smart meters are vulnerable to “data hacking.” Smart meters produce a single data point: how much electricity is being used at a given moment. It’s hard to see how that would be worth a hacker’s time.)

Both groups have their experts and scientific studies; but these days, everybody does. Even creationists and global-warming deniers. I can’t prove that these groups are using bad science, but when they don’t disclose anything about their funding, I have trouble taking their assertions at face value — especially when some arguments seem dubious at best.

A final note.

I’m not trying to depict all four of these groups as entirely — or equally — malevolent. But they all share a common modus operandi: assuming sizable roles in political discourse while operating with an almost complete lack of transparency. This strikes me as fundamentally bad for democracy.

Coming soon to this space… another look at money in our politics: Vermont’s outdated, inadequate campaign disclosure laws.

This story just keeps heating up again.  In  tonight’s Messenger (3/28) Michelle Monroe reveals that the court order drafted by Mr. Luneau’s attorney, Paul Gillies, at Judge Linda Leavitt’s instructions differs markedly from factual representations made in court.  The order is supposed to represent the judge’s factual basis for ordering a new election.  Because the judge has now signed Mr. Gillies erroneous Order, it has to be asked whether the judge read the Order before signing it; or did she have a fundamental misunderstanding of the facts?

_____________________________________________________________

Vermont is as much a tapestry of small town democracies as it is a cohesive whole.  From time to time something plays out on the smaller scale that speaks volumes about the greater process.  

In that light, the disputed Ward 5 aldermanic race in St. Albans represents a teachable moment.  

The long and the short of it is that Joe Luneau, who came up the loser in every one of a series of close recounts against winner Ryan Doyle, challenged the outcome in a court of law and has been rewarded with a do-over.  

Not interested in embroiling the City in further expense and distraction for the sake of a single ward seat; and, in any case, unable to afford legal representation; Doyle will not be challenging the court decision. Nevertheless, many here in the City (perhaps the majority?) feel it represents both a glaring miscarriage of justice and a distortion of local democracy.

The match-up between blue collar wage-earner Ryan Doyle and businessman/incumbent Joe Luneau was, from the start, a David vs. Goliath situation.  

Luneau, the son of a powerful local family headed by Karen Luneau, seemed a sure-thing to win a second term on the City Council and further advance his hereditary claim to the throne.  He had already begun to cement a bloc of allies on the Council and seemed likely to lead them, in a new term, as an unstoppable coalition.

There had been speculation that Luneau would skip the second term entirely and run immediately for mayor, but an early announcement by Democrat Liz Gamache, an extremely popular ex interim City Manager made it extremely unlikely that he would be able to win the seat before Liz had at least one term under her belt on which to be criticized.

Doyle is a bright young independent who has never had anything handed to him on a silver spoon.  He has been volunteering in the community for planning and downtown improvement initiatives since he was in high shool.  After completing a degree in civil engineering, Doyle was finding it impossible to find dependable work in his trade, so he took shift work at a factory while satisfying his passion for civic engagement by volunteering to serve on the planning commission.

He is bright and eager and humble and above all else, one of the most idealistically ethical young men you could ever wish to meet.  We didn’t give him the chance of a snowball in hell against the Karen Luneau machine.

Luneau’s signs soon bristled all over the City, not just in Ward 5 where his family’s Toyota dealership is currently located.  He paired his campaign with that of the scion of another powerful St. Albans Family, Will Howrigan who was challenging Chad Spooner of Ward 6, to join the Luneau voting bloc on the council.  

Both Spooner and Doyle agreed that accepting donations for the race would be against their ethical principles so they, too, pooled what little resources they had, depending mostly on shoe-leather and word-of-mouth to win the support of their constituents.  

According to records, the team of Luneau and Howrigan spent roughly $2,000.  which included hosting a pancake breakfast. Doyle and Spooner, together, spent under $500.

“I have student debt and I have a blue collar job,” said Doyle.

Despite conventional wisdom that, against Luneau’s money and influence, he hadn’t a chance; when the ballots were in, Doyle had defeated Luneau by just a couple of votes.

Following the first tally, a couple more ballots  turned-up among the BFA (school) ballots, having been mistakenly deposited in the wrong box.  They only served to widen Doyle’s margin of victory.  

Over the weekend, the ballots were recounted and several innocent mishaps involving City Clerk Sue Krupp occurred; but the tallies all came down on Doyle’s side.  Nevertheless, Luneau refused to accept defeat and announced he would be challenging the election, due to the  “mishandling of ballots.”

An amusing side-note is that one of the poll volunteers, whose job it was to guide voters as to which box (City or BFA) should receive which ballot, was Mr. Luneau’s own brother.

On Monday, March 12, Ryan Doyle was sworn-in and took his seat at the Council table.

Now it seems he will have to go through the whole campaign cycle again; this time unaccompanied by Spooner, who easily defeated Howrigan.

“Everyone is coming to me, angry basically, with what happened and wanting to volunteer,” said Doyle.”I will not be accepting any financial support…This is a small town election and not even a whole town election, just a small part of it.”

What does he think his prospects are in the upcoming re-vote?  

Doyle is concerned about turnout in a special election. Low turnout, in Doyle’s view, would benefit his opponent.  “There are people that they call. There are people that they give rides to,” said Doyle of his opponent’s campaign. When turnout is low that group becomes a higher percentage of voters.

Stay tuned.

Montpelier’s own Bo Muller-Moore, creator of “Eat More Kale,” has two reasons to celebrate today.

First, the big one: His Kickstarter campaign has reached its goal, raising $75,000 to produce a documentary about his trademark fight with Chick-Fil-A. The corporate giant claims copyright for any usage of the phrase “Eat More” (or in their case, “Eat Mor”) and are trying to force Bo out of business.

Second, his cause has caught the attention of The Economist, which has done a pro-Bo, anti-CFA writeup. A couple of passages after the jump…  

Chick-Fil-A sells an average of nine sandwiches per second at its roughly 1,600 restaurants. Bo Muller-Moore paints T-shirts in the garage next to his house in Montpelier, Vermont. In 2011 Chick-fil-A’s sales were more than $4 billion; Mr Muller-Moore (pictured) estimates that his were $40,000.

Nonetheless, the slogan screened on his shirts-“Eat More Kale”, initially made in 2001 as a favour for a local farmer, whose kale crop had a bumper year-caught the humourless eyes of Chick-fil-A’s lawyers.

…Chick-fil-A insists it has to protect its trademark. But its idea of self-defence looks to others like bullying. The firm is protecting its trademark not from a crafty restaurateur hoping to piggyback on its fame, but from a kale farmer and a “Neolithic stencil-artist” in Vermont.

The article also references Rock Art Brewery’s tussle with the corporate maker of Monster energy drinks. Worth reading.

Anyway, congratulations to Bo Muller-Moore. We suggest the occasion be celebrated with a bottle of Rock Art Vermonster.

Late yesterday we learned that Mike Bertrand had quit as Executive Director of the Vermont Republican Party after a mere five months on the job, and that for three of those five months, he apparently wasn’t paid because the party’s coffers were empty.  

This prompted some reflection in GMD-land, a hearkening back to past predictions of a bleak future for the post-Jim Douglas VT GOP. In January 2011, when the party had (a) just lost the governorship and (b) completely missed a huge national Republican tidal wave, one of us wrote these words:

The Vermont Republican Party is in as bad shape as any major political party I’ve seen. There’re no two ways about it.  

… It was through Dougla’s single-minded interest in his own re-election that the Vermont Republican Party withered under his watch, as it gave little support to legislative Republicans and candidates.

After the jump: Warnings against Democratic complacency, and portents of an ugly new VTGOP.

Last fall, GMD saw Bertrand’s hiring as a recycle, an echo back to Douglas days rather than a step into a new Republican future. And now that he’s left the building, the VT GOP is in the hands of Jack Lindley — a recycle, not to Jim Douglas, but to the days of Bob Stafford. Good grief.  

In October 2010, in a GMD diary naming “up and coming Republican stars,” the first name was Phil Scott. Okay there. But after that? Jason Gibbs, former Douglas flack who was about to lose the race for Secretary of State by almost ten percentage points. Gibbs is now the flack for Ski Vermont, where he is, I’m sure, trying not to think of global warming while casting a weary glance at our sun-baked slopes.  

Also mentioned was Michael Dubie, who’s made no visible move toward politics so far.  All of this makes a 2007 GMD diary sound even more prescient:

Under the guidance of recently departed Chair Jim Barnett, the Republican legislative races were allowed to dry up and blow away while all attention and energy was spent protecting Governor Douglas and pushing some of the other, big ticket statewide races. The result is a dearth of talent in the short term, and few rising stars on the horizon.

Which is at least as true today as it was then. For all his own electoral success, Jim Douglas was a failure at building a party. A year and a half after his exit, its coffers are empty, its leadership is aging, and its statewide ticket is likely to be filled with retreads and no-hopers.  

So, it’s all good for the Democrats, right?   Well, no. I see three things to worry about.  

First: the natural tendency to get complacent. The Dems dominate state government and our Congressional delegation. That kind of success tends to foster laziness at best and corruption at worst. So far, the top Dems have seemingly done a good job of, well, doing their jobs, and making government work.  

The second concern: that Governor Shumlin will echo Jim Douglas’ failure to build his party. GMD, January 2011:  

Shumlin could easily fall into that trap, and the Vermont Democratic Party could atrophy if it becomes exclusively tasked to his re-election. If so, that too could change the playing field. For my money, though, I’m betting Shumlin is too smart to give into that impulse.

Let’s hope. And the third concern: if the VTGOP is an “empty shell” at the start of a campaign season, then others will fill the vacuum. The high-profile advocacy groups Campaign for Vermont and Vermonters for Health Care Freedom are far more active, and much better financed, than the Vermont Republican Party or its (retread) candidate for Governor, Randy Brock.  

The Dick Snelling/Jim Jeffords Republican Party is long gone. It’s obvious that the Jim Douglas “smiley face conservative” GOP is on life support at best. The door is wide open for an influx of corporate cash (into those independent groups if not the party itself), which could create a new VTGOP in the Fox/Rove/Koch model of expensive, dogmatic Mortal Kombat.

It’s unclear how well such a party would fare in traditionally moderate Vermont, but it would certainly have a lot of money in its corner, and it would certainly make our politics a whole lot meaner and nastier.  

The Rent Is Too Damn High by Matthew Yglesias

My rating: 4 of 5 stars

Matt Yglesias is a young journalist, formerly with The Center for American Progress, who is now writing on the economy for Slate magazine. Anyone who has followed his recent reporting or Twitter feed is aware that one recent focus of his work has been the supply-limiting effects of needless regulation, and particularly building and zoning codes. Now, taking his lead from Jimmy McMillan, the recent joke candidate for New York Governor on “The Rent Is Too Damn High” ticket, Yglesias lays out his argument for increasing the supply of creating affordable housing in desirable locations by reducing or eliminating zoning and building requirements that distort the market. 

Yglesias's targets include building height limitations, minimum lot size requirements, and parking requirements that subsidized car ownership. Yglesias argues that not only do these regulations force up housing prices, they also prevent cities from creating the dense, walkable neighborhoods that Boomers and Gen Xers want.

Think liberals are always trying to impose restrictive regulations on private enterprise? “The Rent Is Too Damn High” is a rebuttal of those claims. Concerned about the cost of housing and how the market can address the housing needs of your community? Then you should read this and start talking to your city's planning and zoning departments about what they're doing to fix things.

View all my reviews

While awaiting review of Vermont Yankee by the PSB, and beaching of the waste field from Fukushima on U.S. shores, we who are not constrained from discussing issues of safety can consider  this little nugget from Enformable.

It seems that Tokyo is not without its own fallout issues from Fukushima.  Despite early efforts by industry regulators to downplay both the scope and severity of contamination,

“The nuclear accident in Japan has resulted in widespread deposition of radioactive contamination throughout the northern part of Japan, including the metropolitan Tokyo area. Surface contamination levels in this entire region would be required to be posted as radiological area if they were at a U.S. licensed facility or DOE site.

This “widespread deposition” has implications for the U.S. that go beyond the path of the plume and ocean-born waste.  According to Enformable, an April 2011 teleconference involving U.S. and Japanese officials delved into concerns about what might be entering the U.S. through conventional import channels:

Any materials leaving Japan have the potential for low levels of radioactive contamination. Thus, the discussion about materials in DOD possession is indicative of similar materials that are entering commerce from Japan. In the DC and IPC meetings earlier this week, it was agreed that the limit of 4 Bq/cm2 for commerce was going to be acceptable and posed no health risk.”

Apparently there was some discussion as to whether the Department of Defense should become involved in licensing and disposal of the contaminated material that would be inadvertently imported under this scenario, but the DOD was reluctant to become involved. Their preference was that the contaminated material simply be returned to Japan, but that was impractical under the circumstances.  The teleconference appears to have been inconclusive:

The regulatory provisions cited by members discussed the regulatory aspects of normal commerce in radioactive materials. It is not clear that these provisions would apply to widely scattered accident fallout that has placed low level contaminated material in the hands of many unregulated people and on material that will be entering commerce throughout the world.

To round out that cosmic head-scratcher, here is a video recorded on the first anniversary of the accident, which features Arnie Gundersen of Vermont’s Fairewinds Associates speaking with “Democracy Now” about some of the “Lessons from Fukushima” and the fact that the NRC has so far shown little indication of a willingness to learn from them.  

Gundersen: Fukushima Meltdown Could Result in One Million Cases of Cancer from Fairewinds Energy Education on Vimeo.

Few details available, though there is this from The Brattleboro Reformer:

More than 1,000 people gathered near Entergy’s headquarters on Thursday, to protest the continued operation of the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant.

There were dozens of police officers patiently waiting the people who were going to trespass on Entergy’s property and get arrested in civil disobedience.

Most of the group walked from the Brattleboro Common to the headquarter along Old Ferry Road congesting traffic along Route 5 for two hours.

The protest was the largest in Vermont in the past 25 years.

The Reformer’s Facebook page is doing lots of updates, including sharing videos and photos from the protest.  I know there have been several (peaceful) arrests, but I’m not clear on how many of those were at VY or at the Entergy NE HQ in White Plains, NY (also reported by the Reformer).

Here’s some news you don’t want to see when you’re heading into campaign season.  Vermont Press Bureau:  

Mike Bertrand ended his short stint as executive director of the Vermont Republican Party last week, departing the post to dedicate more time to his private consulting business.

Bertrand had been on the job for not quite five months, having taken over for Pat McDonald last November. His departure leaves the newly-ensconced VTGOP Chair Jack Lindley with a big vacancy to fill.  

Er, make that two vacancies: one in the office, one in the bank.    

Bertrand hadn’t been paid since the beginning of the year, according to GOP Chairman Jack Lindley.

Oooh, awkward.  

An ebb in fundraising, Lindley said, has temporarily sapped the party’s accounts. Lindley said he intends to deliver Bertrand his back pay, though Bertrand said it really isn’t a big deal.

“An ebb in fundraising” in an election year??? Wow. And here I thought the Republicans were the party of the wealthy.    

(Bunched Knicker Syndrome, the hot new political disease of 2012. BKS Fever… catch it!)

Dear oh dear. House Republicans are in a flutter because Governor Shumlin dared to show his face in “their” chamber during a session. Via VTDigger…

Last month, Gov. Peter Shumlin, a former representative and senator, sidestepped the usual form and took a seat in one of the plush red velvet-covered Senate chairs behind the House podium. The circumstance? The governor was making the rounds at the Statehouse with Thomas Sullivan, the new president of the University of Vermont, who was introduced to the General Assembly.

The governor didn’t speak or draw attention to himself, but his very presence was duly noted by Republicans who say Shumlin breached protocol by entering the chamber while the House was in session.

Apparently the presence of The Great Man™ was unnerving to the assembled throng. They were unable to concentrate on the People’s Business™ due to the waves of charisma emanating from Governor Shumlin. Or maybe they feared he was planning to pass orders to Shap via secret hand-signals, which would be a clear violation of protocol. Or something.  

(For those unfamiliar with the State House, the chairs behind the Speaker’s podium are open to the public whenever they’re not occupied by the State Senate. It’s equivalent to sitting in the gallery.)

After the jump: Hurt fee-fees as political tactic.

Rep. Tom Koch, a Republican member from Barre who has served in the House since 1997, called it a “symbolic type of thing.”

“When he’s at work, we don’t go marching into his office,” Koch said. “I don’t want to make a big stink about it, but it’s technically not proper.”

You don’t want to make a big stink about it, eh? Then what are you aiming for here, a mid-sized stink? Fart in an elevator? A passing whiff of perfume?

Oh, another thing: the Governor’s office doesn’t have public seating. So your comparison is, well, completely off base.

But for the sake of fairness, let’s take this to the impartial adjudicator.

Donald Milne, Clerk of the House, says the governor’s presence in the House was unusual, but not inappropriate. The Senate seats in the House, he said, are open to the public – and the governor is a member of the public.

Gov. James Douglas appeared in the gallery several times over the course of his tenure in office, Milne recalled.

Well, then. Never mind!

Looks like we have a developing epidemic of BKS on the Republican side. They made a big fuss over Democratic texting in a recent health-care debate. And, of course, they’re in the habit of putting out press releases castigating the Governor whenever he goes on vacation. Which, as we all know, Republicans never do.

(Well, yeah, George W. Bush set the all-time record for executive vacations… but he was doin’ manly stuff, like bike-ridin’ and brush-clearin’. And yeah, he broke the record set by Ronald Reagan, but Ronnie was on his ranch, ridin’ horses and looking’ all John Wayne-y. That’s an Amurrican vacation, dangit. Not like Shumlin idling away on some foreign beach, prob’ly wearin’ a lavender Speedo.)

(Oops, I think I just started a rumor there.)

National Republicans make a habit of this — slamming Democrats for any perceived slight or shortcoming no matter how irrelevant. Guess we’ll be getting more of the same from Vermont Republicans. Another sign that the formerly moderate VTGOP has adopted the Fox News/Karl Rove playbook.

As some of you know, New Hampshire recently caught up with Vermont, allowing for same sex marriage in their fine, if somewhat behind the rest of us, state.  

There was some question, however, as to whether or not this would stand.  Last election cycle, the Granite state elected a whole bunch of ultra-right wing, ultra-crazy, tea party style republicans, to the point where they had a veto-proof majority if they were willing to work as a sold block.  The one saving grace of this is that some of them are too crazy to compromise.  One of the items on the chopping block was marriage equality.  The thing is, however, they figured out last year that they really did not want to have that fight.  

So they held it off for a year.  And that’s when things got interesting.

Support for marriage equality has, in fact, grown in New Hampshire.  Just like in Vermont and Massachusetts, this is the sort of thing that when people claim the sky will fall if it happens and then, when it happens, there’s no falling sky, people start to think “hey! You people promised me moon rocks raining down form the heavens!  You have no credibility!”  Or something.  I probably can’t tell exactly what people who believe that sort of thing would think, because from my point of view, they’re very crazy, very gullible, or both.

So, anyway… yes, marriage equality in New Hampshire is not only not unpopular, repealing it is *wildly* unpopular:

The WMUR Granite State poll shows that only 27 percent of New Hampshire adults support repealing same-sex marriage, while 50 percent strongly oppose repeal. The percentages are similar to a poll asking the same question in February.

Note that phrase “strongly oppose.”  This is a state that’s thinking “what did we put you people in charge for, because it certainly wasn’t this.”

So what happened yesterday?

The initial panic from the anti-marriage forces could be seen early when NOM (the National Organization for Marriage, which, ironically, is opposed to my marriage) floated support for a “compromise” bill, which would replace same-sex marriage with civil unions.

This happened in Massachusetts some time back.  When they were discussing the possibility of same sex marriage, the debate shifted dramatically to the point where instead of conservatives opposing civil unions, civil unions became the inadequate conservative alternative to full marriage equality.  So NOM, which blatantly opposed even civil unions until recently, tried a hail mary pass in which they would support civil unions in hopes of avoiding marriage equality.

Why did they do this?  Because even though they are a bigoted, vile, hate group they are not, in fact, complete morons.  They, in fact, saw their entire New Hampshire campaign collapsing before their eyes.

And that’s when this happened:

It’s a bigger win than we even thought: actual vote count was 211-116! #NH4M #lgbt

— NH Families (@NHFamilies) March 21, 2012

That win is ours.  Not only did we defeat the attempt to repeal marriage equality.  It went down in flames.

Oh, and to NOM:

“While we are disappointed in this vote today, we remain committed to giving the voters of New Hampshire the opportunity to restore the traditional definition of marriage. The only time gay marriage activists are able to win is when they can bypass the people and get activist judges or legislators to do their bidding, usually after plying them with large campaign contributions.

Yes.  Representative Democracy is such a pain.