Democrats and Republicans Swap Complaints Over Session Solicitations

Tweet

* updated below with comments by Gov. Peter Shumlin *

Vermont Republicans are asking the state's attorney general to investigate Gov. Peter Shumlin's alleged violation of campaign election laws by sending out fund-raising solicitations to lobbyists.

In response, the Vermont Democrats have now filed a similar complaint to Sorrell's office against the former campaign of Republican Gov. Jim Douglas for sending a solicitation to a Vermont lobbyist during the 2009-2010 session.

Zoinks! Is it 2012 already?

As noted in this week's "Fair Game," lawmakers and the governor, along with administration officials, are forbidden from soliciting donations, or accepting solicited donations, from registered lobbyists or their employers during a legislative session. And by session the law means from the start of the biennium to the end of the biennium — in this case, when the legislature adjourns in 2012. 

The Vermont GOP is asking the state's top cop to investigate whether Shumlin's two emails — one dated April 6 and the other April 18 — violated the law. Both asked recipients to give money — one was signed by Shumlin and the other was signed by Matt Vinci, president of the Professional Firefighters of Vermont. Vinci had just returned from Washington, D.C. where Shumlin had testified before a House committee in support of public employee unions and about state budget concerns. Shumlin testified alongside Republican Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin.

Vinci had a front-row seat for the tete-a-tete. Oddly enough, the firefighters backed Republican Brian Dubie in the 2010 election against Shumlin, but nearly pulled their support for Dubie because of Dubie's aggressive questioning of Shumlin's ethics — remember www.shumlinethics.com? — and dragging a state trooper's name into the political arena.

The Vermont GOP seems on a similar trajectory by digging in on this email kerfuffle, but maybe Sorrell will make an example of his fellow Democrat, Shumlin. Or, maybe the Democratic Secretary of State Jim Condos will. Or the Democratic legislature. Or ... Oh, never mind.

Shumlin isn't the first governor to send a solicitious fundraising letter during a legislative session that ended up in the mailbox of a registered lobbyist. In the case of Douglas's letter it was Clare Buckley, who is part of the lobbying firm Buckley, Storrow and Hughes, which is affiliated with KSE Partners. (Letter is pasted below).

In their complaint about the Douglas letter, Vermont Democratic Party's executive director Jesse Bragg notes a difference between Shumlin's emails and what Douglas did. Email lists are 'opt-in' by nature, Bragg said, meaning anyone can sign up to be on one. That's not the case with a piece of direct mail — which is what the Douglas letter was, Bragg contends.

"The list of recipients was intentionally created by the Douglas campaign in order to solicit contributions," Bragg wrote. "This is a clear violation of the law."

Vermont GOP Chairwoman Pat McDonald alleges that Shumlin's campaign emails, too, landed in the inboxes of more than one lobbyist, who forwarded the emails to her and voiced concern about their propriety. McDonald has not named those lobbyists.

As to Douglas' letter, McDonald was blunt, "It’s the law and should be followed by legislators and administrative officials as indicated in statute."

For its part, the Shumlin campaign has admitted that it didn't scrub its email list of lobbyists before hitting the "send" button and promises to do a better job at vetting its email solicitation list in the future.

Given Shumlin's penchant for pushing the envelope, time will tell.

In her letter to Sorrell, Chairwoman McDonald suggests that if Shumlin isn't the first to violate this law — as Secretary of State Condos has intimated — then perhaps there needs to be more education, and enforcement, on the topic.

Word.

"If this is in fact a law that is easily misunderstood, where mistakes are made, or no one really cares to enforce it, perhaps it is time to take a look at how we improve the oversight of our campaign finance laws," notes McDonald. "These laws help keep the public trust of elected officials. It's important that we have an open and transparent system in place."

Transparency? Where's the fun in that?

Download a copy of former Douglas' 2009 fund-raising letter: Douglas letter

* update: posted 4.28.11 *

At his weekly press conference today (Thursday) Gov. Peter Shumlin was blunt when asked about this campaign solicitation kerfuffle.

"We take full responsibility for the oversight and we apologize for the oversight," said Shumlin. The "we" in this case was Shumlin and his part-time campaign staffer.

Shumlin also said he agreed with GOP Chairwoman Pat McDonald that the law needed a close review.

Shumlin also, oddly enough, said despite two campaign fundraising emails, a campaign fundraiser in Rhode Island and having a part-time hire onboard as a campaign staffer he does not, I repeat not, have an active campaign.

Um, yeah. Right.

"I am not an announced candidate," said Shumlin.

So, those fundraising letters, a hired staffer and an out-of-state fundraiser is for, what? "Just in case," he quipped.

Shumlin said his campaign had not taken any money from lobbyists as a result of his fundraising letters — one which was signed by him and the other by Matt Vinci, president of the Professional Firefighters of Vermont. He also said he would not take any money.

Shumlin said he never talked to Vinci about writing the letter on his behalf.

The controversy, Shumlin said, reminded him of the flap over the president's birth certificate: "It's a lot to do about very little."

Comments

[Jcarter]

Interesting. Well, the law is the law and BOTH Douglas and Shumlin should be persecuted as set forth in the statutes...Period. Dem or Rep, just because you are a political figure doesn't mean you don't have to follow the law.

But for accuracies sake I do need to disagree with Bragg :

"Jesse Bragg notes a difference between Shumlin's emails and what Douglas did. Email lists are 'opt-in' by nature, Bragg said, meaning anyone can sign up to be on one. That's not the case with a piece of direct mail"

That's not really accurate. Yes e-mails are opt in, but in reality so can direct mailings be. People create spreadsheets of addresses all the time, hit print and slap them on an envelope. So while Jim may have in fact done it intentionally, you can't say that because it was a direct mailing that it was definitely the case unequivically. It very well could have been a campaign volunteer that wasn't informed or paying attention.

I don't think that absolves Douglas any more then an e-mail being "opt-in" absolves Shumlin. They are both responsible for what occurs in the administrations and they should both face justice per VT law.

[the other david]

"The Vermont GOP is asking the state's top cop to investigate whether Shumlin's two emails — one dated April 6 and the other April 18 — violated the law."

Ya, good luck with that.

He will, however, make sure we don't buy soda, and will spend our tax dollars investigating whether or not McDonald's uses real Vermont syrup in its maple-flavored oatmeal.

[Tim]

"You're a towel!"

[Jimbo Douglas]

Oh now you've done it Pat. Now I have to explain why it was okay for me to do what you are mad at the Democrats for doing. I wish you could have left it alone already. Until you came along, I was so good at hiding all my sketchy campaign practices. What will me students think of me now? Which side are you on Pat?

[Tim]

"In her letter to Sorrell, Chairwoman McDonald suggests that if Shumlin isn't the first to violate this law — as Secretary of State Condos has intimated — then perhaps there needs to be more education, and enforcement, on the topic.

Word."

Although I'm inclined to agree with you Mr. Totten, it is also true that when the State seizes a mere citizen or low level employee in the coils of its' justice machine, you just don't see mercy or common sense advocated by cabinet level officials. Case in point the recently blogged bit about the granny with 30 pot plants that the State tried to put away for 15 years.

To hell with proportionality: Shumlin and Douglas can share a cell in Tennessee or whatever backwater redneck gulag we're renting space from these days. Granny can bake them some brownies. Equal justice under law.

[Margo Howland]

I received one of those emails. I thought the campaign was beginning a tad early so I just forwarded it to my Google file box where I store emails I don't want to print out but might want to read again later. Keeps them from clogging up my inbox.

[Frank Davis]

Okay, the law was violated. The wrongdoers must suffer the consequences. Has anyone really read the statute yet? What are the consequenses? $25 for each offense? $100? Twice the money collected? [Which I undertand was $0.] Let's get on with what is important. Boycott this tit for tat story with no more news about Donald Thrumper, the royal wedding, Charlie Sheen and Bristol Palin.

[Jcarter]

Yes Frank, it's a pretty short statute, you can read it in about 30secs, 60 if you are a first grader. Two minutes if you are a politician. The penalty is as follows :

"§ 268. Penalties; enforcement

(a) The attorney general shall enforce the provisions of this chapter, and may bring an action in superior court to ensure compliance and to obtain civil penalties in the amounts described in subsection (b) of this section.

(b) the court may grant temporary and permanent injunctive relief, and may:

(1) enjoin future activities;

(2) order remedial actions to be taken to effect all registration and disclosure required by this chapter;

(3) order reimbursement from any lobbyist or employer found to be in violation of this chapter;

(4) levy a civil penalty as provided in this subdivision. A civil penalty of not more than $10,000.00 may be levied for each violation. In addition, in the case of a continuing violation, a penalty of not more than $1,000.00 may be imposed for each day the violation continues. (Added 1989, No. 160 (Adj. Sess.), { 2, eff. April 30, 1990; amended 1993, No. 101, { 4; 2005, No. 99 (Adj. Sess.), { 6, eff. Jan. 1, 2007.)"

So basically, they can tell him to stop and fine 10,000 per violation. Since he sent out two e-mails depending on how many lobbyists were actually on that e-mail list it could be significant. Say there were 10 lobbyist groups, well that could result in a 200,000 fine. If there were a 100, that could cost Shummy 2 Mil.

Next time instead of making snarky remarks about whether or not people are reading the statute, you could try to actually read it yourself.

[Tim]

Well intentioned as they may be, these campaign laws force candidates of all stripes into contortions:

"Shumlin also, oddly enough, said despite two campaign fundraising emails, a campaign fundraiser in Rhode Island and having a part-time hire onboard as a campaign staffer he does not, I repeat not, have an active campaign."

Obviously what it means is that Shumlin has his campaign in place, albeit at low intensity AND WHAT IS WRONG WITH THAT? WHY SHOULD STATING THE OBVIOUS BE ILLEGAL?

It shouldn't be, but, apparently if the Governor says that he plans to run again, barring acts of God, and that he needs a skeleton crew in place it aome how puts him at risk of law.

Remember when Americans had free speech? Even politicians?

[Jcarter]

Tim,

The law, or at least the one referenced here, does not bar him from running a campaign, hiring people or holding fundraisers.

The law as it applies here, bars him from soliciting or accepting money from lobbyist during the session. The reasoning should be obvious.

[Tim]

Thanks JC. I was referring broadly to the net of laws that (I belive) don't really do much more than make politics complicated.
I'll differ on donations, I think that as long as who and how much are disclosed, people can draw their own conclusions about timing, it doesn't take a law. After all, a lot of back room dealing is done out of session, when committees are convening and pols are strategizing. Politics takes money and donors, and that means pols have to raise money. We impose lots of rules, then, we discover one day that two Governors, one from each party have violated them and we (hopefully) realize that these rules are too restrictive.
The likely outcome in this case is that it will be decided that both violated the, we don't want them punished, but we'll keep the law anyway. Makes no sense to me.

[Jcarter]

Tim,

I agree with the actual usefullness of these laws. It's ridiculous, although that's par for the course with the VT Legislature.