Candidates and the Money Chase

Tweet

* updated & corrected, see note below *

News flash: Candidates running for Vermont's highest office raise money from businesses, lobbyists and ordinary people. In some cases a lot of money, and in other cases not so much.

That's one takeaway from yesterday's campaign finance reports.

Another is that several candidates — Lt. Gov. Brian Dubie, former state senator and Google exec Matt Dunne, Secretary of State Deb Markowitz, Sen. Doug Racine and Senate President Pro Tem Peter Shumlin — are treating their campaigns more like small businesses. How so? They don't pay their staff as consultants and some even provide health care to their key staffers.

Markowitz and Shumlin are providing health care through Blue Cross Blue Shield of Vermont, while Dubie is buying insurance through MVP Health Care, based in New York. Racine is paying one staffer's COBRA benefit, while another staffer is receiving coverage via Catamount Health.

Another finding is that Democratic donors appear to be hedging monetary bets, i.e., campaign contributions, among three of the five Democrats running for governor: Markowitz, Shumlin and former state senator and Google exec Matt Dunne.

Markowitz has a solid group of in-state supporters who have yet to give the maximum $2000, and her out-of-state haul appears to be lower than that of any other candidate, save senators Doug Racine and Susan Bartlett — neither of whom has raised much money at all.

That said, it's clear the EMILY's List endorsement is helping Markowitz raise cash from donors around the country. From them she received about $75,000 out of $325,000 raised during the reporting period. Markowitz has accumulated more than $525,000 since announcing her bid for governor, but has spent more than $330,000. So she currently has about $180,000 in the bank.

Markowitz has spent roughly $14,000 on fundraising via EMILY's List mailings, another $18,000 on polling, and another $5300 on an outside political consultant. The rest of her money has gone into printing supplies and postage for other mailings, and voter identification and outreach.

Shumlin has also raised a good chunk of change from, well, Shumlin. He's his own largest donor, having written a whopping $150,000 check to the campaign. At least Shumlin has convinced himself he's the best candidate.

Shumlin raised about  $90,000 from out-of-state donors, most of it in $1000 and $2000 contributions, and largely, it appears, from supporters of same-sex marriage. Shumlin "raised" a total of $418,000, but has spent $200,000 — leaving him with $217,000 in the bank. Were it not for his $150,000 check, he'd only have $57,000 in the bank. Shumlin has spent about $30,000 on three separate consultants, including $14,000 to Vermonter Kate O'Connor, and another $80,000 on advertising, along with staff salaries and campaign materials.

Dunne, too, has been pulling in money from his Silicon Valley, Washington, D.C., and New York City contacts: about $90,000 from out-of-state donors, out of a total haul of $267,000. A small chunk of that money came from ex-pat Vermonters. Dunne has spent about $129,000, which leaves him with $132,000 in the bank. He's spent close to $40,000 on out-of-state consultants and the rest on staff and fundraising.

Racine, who has been endorsed by more unions and other organizations than any of his competitors, has not been able to translate that into cash: He's raised a paltry $100,000 since he last filed a report in July 2009. Using third parties to augment your own field operations is one thing, but having them be your field operation is quite another. Racine contends otherwise, saying he has a small army of 400 volunteers around the state and in-house interns doing what other campaigns are paying people to do.

Racine has raised only $2300 from out-of-state donors. In all, he's spent about $133,000 and has about $80,000 in the bank. Most of his spending has been on campaign staff. Racine spent $5000 so far on adviser Joe Trippi.

Bartlett has raised the least money, at slightly more than $70,000, and has about $11,000 in the bank. Of the sum she's raised, $11,700 came from her previous senate campaigns and $5000 from herself and her husband. Bartlett has received about $12,000 from out-of-state contributors. Of the $60,000 she's spent, some $45,000 has gone to out-of-state consultants, with the rest going to her lean campaign staff.

Meanwhile, Dubie raised an impressive $943,000 — almost more money than he's raised in all his races for lieutenant governor combined. He's received about $120,000 from out-of-state contributions, which came from a mix of individuals, businesses, business PACs and GOP political PACs.

Dubie has spent $36,000 on direct mail, another $32,000 on political consulting and $26,500 on polling. Meanwhile, he's plunked down $46,450 to have his face pop up on your computer screen — via online ads that embed in such websites as the New York Times and other national sites viewed by Vermonters. He's also paid out more than $6000 to Michigan-based firm Stormo & Associates for "opposition research."

Independent Dennis Steele has raised $2300 from contributors and spent $1100.

Finally, another major takeaway from yesterday's filing is this: Vermont's campaign-finance laws and its reporting requirements are ridiculously weak. Donations less than $100 are not reported, but above the $100 mark, people aren't required to put down their occupation or where they work, so it can be difficult to determine if business owners are "bundling" donations with those of employees or corporate board members.

Without that information, it takes a lot more sleuthing to determine which lobbying firms, or with businesses with state contracts, are spreading their wealth in hopes of gaining access or currying favor with the candidates.

It's also nearly impossible to independently verify candidates' claims about in-state versus out-of-state contributions. With only paper copies in hand, one has to go through each report line by line and add each donation up by hand or calculator. The information isn't provided in such a way that it can be easily sorted and manipulated in a database.

You can thank the Vermont legislature for not funding a key upgrade to the state's elections database for the latter problem.

* This post was corrected to reflect that the Racine and Dunne campaigns are paying their staff as employees, not consultants. Racine's camp is also providing health care to its two key staffers. My apologies for the error.

Comments

[Todd for Vermont House]

Without that information, it takes a lot more sleuthing to determine which lobbying firms, or with businesses with state contracts, are spreading their wealth in hopes of gaining access or currying favor with the candidates.

This is why my campaign is the best: nobody is trying to influence me, so I just get small donations from individuals and no groups or special interests! That makes sleuthing easy. Heck, I'll even provide my spreadsheet with all the deets to any enterprising journo.

NB: I would totally accept such contributions. Please?

[Michael Colby]

Thanks for weaving the need for campaign finance reform into this, Shay. It's sadly ridiculous to see the Dems and the Repubs brag about their sides' money while denigrating the money of the other side. Pot, meet kettle. And the real losers are the vast, vast majority of Vermonters who can't afford to play in this money/politics game, instead just hoping for some focus on the issues that affect our daily lives.

Until those politicians with the most money (read: obligations to those with money) are denigrated and shunned at the polls, this game will only continue because the two parties benefiting from it will never change it on their own.

The headlines to these campaign financial reports should read like this: Dubie Owes $1 million Favors, Dems Owe $1.5 Million in Favors.

For the rest of us: Enjoy your (spare) change.

[Shay Totten]

Michael: Yer welcome. Pols can debate the amounts to restrict spending and giving, but for me I'd just like to be able to shine some better light on the current system, such as it is.

Then again, reading over all these reports makes me wonder if the economic collapse has been a figment of my imagination. The economy seems to be doing fine for the folks who can afford to place wagers, er, give support, er, ask favors of people running for office. Or, maybe the way we fund elections is just one more thing in this country that is "too big to fail."

[sean]

If our Supreme Court can't get past the insane notion that money equals speech, let's at least START with the notion that a candidate who's running for election in/from a particular state should only be able to accept money from within that state. Why should Barbara Streisand be able to decide who becomes the Governor of Vermont? Oh, but our pious, liberal heroes Markowitz (Emily's List), Shumlin (Mr. Gay Marriage), and Dunne (Mr. Google/Silicon Valley), and our union shill Racine, would never agree to that, now would they?

BTW, does that mean that Shumlin owes himself a $150,000 favor?

[Todd for Vermont House]

I'd submit, Sean, that if money is equated with speech, then candidates should be able to accept it from any comers. But there's a better solution: public financing.

It's not a simple thing, obviously, to implement (let alone get passed). Yet it's something to strive for to remove the "need" for corporate funding, out-of-state donations, etc.

Full disclosure: being an impoverished stay-at-home-dad and blogger running as an independent citizen with no political network, I've relied on my online community to fund my campaign to the tune of 80% outside VT. I am working to improve that percentage as I reach out to my constituents, but it takes time to build a base without a party's donor list. That equation has to change. The Money Chase is anathema to democracy.

[One _Vermonter]

Brian Dubie would never agree to reject out of state contributions either.

[sean]

"Brian Dubie would never agree to reject out of state contributions either."

Let's not give any of 'em a choice about it then.

And, sorry, Todd, but this is not a public-financing issue. And whether or not money equals speech has no bearing on whether we could and should limit campaign donations to actual constituents -- the people you're being elected to represent. Your claimed "impovershment" doesn't mean you should get a pass on the out-of-state funding ban. That's especially true in your case, where you're running for a seat in the Vermont legislature. There is simply no legitimate argument whatsoever for anyone from out of state funding a candidate for a state legislative race. When you pledge to only take donations from in-state, I'll take a look at your struggling candidacy.

[Haik Bedrosian]

"There is simply no legitimate argument whatsoever for anyone from out of state funding a candidate for a state legislative race."

No legitimate argument whatsoever? I'm not sure.

What if a man lives 75 years in Vermont, then moves into a nursing home just across the border in New Hampshire. Then a Nazi moves into the Vermont legislative district the old man came from, and runs for the house against the old man's daughter is the current representative from that district.

You're saying the old man would have "no legitimate argument whatsoever" for sending his daughter down the road in Vermont a campaign contribution so that she might defeat a Nazi running against her? Just because now as a New Hampshire resident he's from "out of state?"

[Todd for Vermont House]

"And, sorry, Todd, but this is not a public-financing issue."

Yeah, it is. If we want fair elections, take the money out of the equation. Period.

If the current law of the land is that money = speech, then we cannot limit that speech to just Vermonters. We are not an island. Folks from out of state do business here, vacation here, injecting all sorts of money into state coffers. You might not like it, and stand on some purity principle, but then you've just entrenched monied, partisan, and incumbent interests within Vermont.

"Your claimed "impovershment" doesn't mean you should get a pass on the out-of-state funding ban."

It's not claimed. It's fact. I'm an underemployed stay-at-home-dad.

"There is simply no legitimate argument whatsoever for anyone from out of state funding a candidate for a state legislative race."

I disagree with your assertion.

My constituents get to vote, which nobody out-of-state does. So friends and family, who can't cast a ballot but support my attempt to shake up the status quo, which includes people who can raise corporate money without any heavy lifting, send me money. It's helped me get a campaign started that I otherwise would not be able to afford.

"When you pledge to only take donations from in-state, I'll take a look at your struggling candidacy."

That's not a pledge I will take, so my "struggling" candidacy will have to run under your radar. Regardless, as a private citizen I have a right to run for the citizens' legislature. If I have no self-financing means, I have a right to raise cash however I can.

My only chance to compete has been to get money for gas, printing supplies, etc, from folks who care about what I do. With that I have been able to ramp up canvassing, calling and mailing my constituents, which will ideally generate more funds in-state.

If you're concerned about undue influence of money, from flatlanders or otherwise, get on the CF reform train.

[sean]

"What if a man lives 75 years in Vermont, then moves into a nursing home just across the border in New Hampshire. Then a Nazi moves into the Vermont legislative district the old man came from, and runs for the house against the old man's daughter is the current representative from that district."

Haik, is this the best you can do? Nazis in Vermont?

And, yes, even with your extreme example, I'd like to see a ban on any campaign contributions from anyone not actually living in the state. Vermont elections should not be influenced by Barbara Streisand, Emily's List, or British Petroleum for that matter. Vermont is already known by outside groups as an "experiment state" where you can influence policy and then potentially export that policy to other states.

Until we get a US Supreme Court that says money does not equal speech (in which case we could get the wholesale campaign finance reform I am looking for), in-state only contributions would be a good first step.

[Todd for Vermont House]

"Until we get a US Supreme Court that says money does not equal speech (in which case we could get the wholesale campaign finance reform I am looking for), in-state only contributions would be a good first step."

Vermont-only contributions would fly directly in the face of the current $ = speech law of the land, so not only is it a half-measure, it wouldn't actually pass muster legally. I look forward to your support of public campaign financing as part of a comprehensive effort to remove money's influence on our elections. That would completely moot your concern about flatlanders donating to candidates while enabling more citizens to participate in their legislature.

[Gloria]

Sad. If the democrats had simply figured out ahead of time who the best candidate was and devoted all their time and energy and money into this one person, they would have had a real fighting chance to win in November. The 5 of them have raised more money, combined, than Dubie. However come November, Dubie will win because he's ran a smart and error-free campaign. The democrats really need some strong leadership going forward if they want to win these races. Until then, all their egos just get in the way.

[Al]

come on bolton, get with the program. Start charging for parking at the school. With this money, buy some trashcans and some signs. On the signs, talk about respecting the area. Use the money to pay casella to haul the trash and recycling. Hire spillanes to tow the cars from the road, it's one phone call. People are attracted to beautiful places. Its not going to end. More and more people are just going to come. So instead of resisting, embrace the valuable assest you have and make some money off it. Get with the program bolton!

[sean]

@ Todd:

"Vermont-only contributions would fly directly in the face of the current $ = speech law of the land"

Why is that supported by the law? Tell me where the US Supreme Court has said that because money = speech, a particular state cannot limit contributions to only those from within that state?

@ Gloria: your suggestion for having Democratic insiders determine in advance who is the best candidate, and then limiting the Democratic candidates to that one person, is undemocratic. It is also troubling in that, let's suppose that "agreed-upon" person gets in trouble late in the campaign and is revealed to be a bad or unelectable candidate? At that point, you're committed and there's nothing you can do. At least leaving the selection process to the primary on August 24 sorts the nominee out out late in the game so there's less of a chance that you've backed the single wrong horse all along.

Also, you clearly want a Democrat to win, but you say Dubie has run a smart and error-free campain and that his Democratic opponents are all egotists (which I agree with at least in the case of perennial Gov. or Lt. Gov. candidates Shumlin, Racine, and Dunne). So why isn't that a recognition that Dubie deserves to win?

[Todd for Vermont House]

SCOTUS rulings are, of course, limited to the cases before them. Yet I suspect that if a state law were to limit monetary contributions to in-state only and were to wend its way through the courts, the current makeup of SCOTUS would follow its precedent of ruling that money essentially is speech, especially since Amendment I has been incorporated.

[sean]

Fine, but your "suspicion" of what the Supreme Court might do is not a good argument for not limiting campaign contributions to within the state.

We absolutely KNOW that the SC (at least this one) says you can't limit money because money = speech.

We do NOT know that they would rule that you can't limit contributions to those from within the state only, because no one's ever tried it.

There's absolutely no reason not to try it. And every reason to do so. Except of course, that NO candidate for office in Vermont -- Democrat, Republican, Progressive, etc. -- is willing to sign a bill that prohibits them from taking $$ from Barbara Streisand or Newt Gingrich. It's frankly disgusting.