Not-so-petty squabbling

The original plan for today was a post dealing with a substantive, significant, and complex policy matter.

Too complex, as it turned out, to deal with in the time available. So in the interest of both precision and fairness, it will have to wait until next week.

Meanwhile, let’s have some fun with politics, because, with less than a month to go until Primary Day, a few of the candidates are starting to get a little tetchy.

Or at least to pretend to be getting a little tetchy. As a campaign reaches its final days, candidates have to find some way to distinguish themselves from their opponents. Often, that means finding some reason – or ostensible  reason—to criticize said opponents, or at least to make some news.

Perhaps surprisingly, this testiness has not really been evident in the race that dominates the scene right now – the Democratic primary for governor, in which the five candidates so far are being gentle with one another.

So far.

Oh, there was that little dustup between Peter Shumlin and Matt Dunne. After Shumlin bragged that he was “the only candidate in this race who has sponsored a single payer health care bill,” Dunne noted that  “in the 1993-1994 Legislative Session, House Bill 0763 titled, ‘Vermont Health Security Plan/Single-Payer Health Plan’ was co-sponsored by several House Members including Matt Dunne.”

Shumlin conceded defeat (well, he conceded error), and the two shook hands in front of the State House and they all lived happily ever after, at least until they can find something else about which to quarrel.

As squabbles go, this was both bland and minor. Perhaps more significantly, it was also irrelevant to the actual world and the actual state both men want to govern. According to Pubic Law 111-152, officially the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, commonly known as the Health Care Law, states may not adopt significantly different health care financing systems until at least 2017.

Some Vermont Democrats insist that Congress might change this provision earlier. Congress will do no such thing, and a politician who refuses to acknowledge this reality risks disserving the voters.

Will one of the Democratic contenders be so bold as to publically acknowledge this?

Don’t bet on it.

But the real tetchiness has come in the two primaries for secretary of state, an office which may not be worth getting angry about. On the Democratic side, the flappette began when candidate Charles Merriman of Middlesex went on Mark Johnson’s WDEV-FM radio show and said, “I should have run as an independent… I thought about it and frankly I ran as a Democrat because I figured I had a better chance of winning than if I ran as an independent. If I get in, I’ll run as an independent next time.”

Horrors!

So, at least, proclaimed a few Democrats. Merriman’s opponent, former Chittenden County Senator Jim Condos, the apparent front-runner in the race, told Vermont Public Radio that the comment might reflect on Merriman’s “character, if you’re…using the party to benefit yourself.”

Merriman tried to wriggle out of the hole he’d dug by proclaiming himself a good, loyal, liberal, Democrat, but one who thinks the Secretary of State’s office ought to be non-partisan.

Not a bad point. Perhaps the Secretary of State’s office ought not even be elected. It is, after all, an administrative (as opposed to policy-setting) position. In neighboring New York, the Secretary of State has been an appointed position for decades, and it works just fine.

But if the Democratic candidates are having a little tiff, the Republicans are engaged in a cat-fight. The first blow was struck by the candidate who seems to be losing, attorney Chris Roy, who accused Jason Gibbs of exaggerating his accomplishments both in the private sector and as Commissioner of Forests and Parks.

“Inaccurate and misleading accusations,” shot back Gibbs, who has the endorsement of Gov. Jim Douglas, whose spokesman he was for several years. Gibbs also appears to have more money and a better-organized campaign.

Indeed, so confident does Gibbs seem to be that he has poked his snoot into the governor’s race, trying to help Republican Brian Dubie by attacking the incumbent Secretary of State, Deb Markowitz, one of the Democratic candidates for governor.

In a letter to Markowitz, Gibbs claimed that “insufficient effort has been made (by her office) to ensure that all (Vermont troops in Iraq and Afghanistan) are adequately notified” that the primary date has been moved up to August 24.

As evidence, Gibbs cited a tape of Gov. Douglas, on his recent trip to the war zone, discovering “that the Primary Election date being provided to troops there was still September 14.”

Yes, but while that is evidence of a mistake, the mistake was not made by Markowitz. It was made by the United States Armed Forces, which are, as those of us who have served in them are well aware, so mistake-prone that their employees over the years have created several inventive expressions for mistake-making which are too colorful to be repeated here.

Gibbs also criticized Markowitz because some of the ballots for early voting in the primary, which started July 12, were printed on paper that was the wrong size. The error, which was made by the paper company, was discovered and rectified (at the company’s expense) that day, and there have been no reports of anyone who wanted to vote being unable to do so on time.

Markowitz has been Secretary of State since 1998. Being mortal, she has no doubt made a few mistakes in that time. But if her opponents can’t come up with more troubling examples than these, she must have done quite a good job indeed.

There are 25 days to go. Prepare for more of the same, only pettier and tetchier.

One of the great things about politics is that it’s OK to impose guilt by association.

Because it isn’t really guilt, just responsibility.

In the criminal court system, prosecutors do not (or at least should not) win convictions because the defendant’s father, girlfriend, uncle, business partner, or fellow-member of the Lions Club had done something wrong.

But candidates may fairly be judged by their associates, those who give them money and those to whom they give money for services rendered. Voters should know who are the guys their candidates are hanging around with (using, here, the everyday, rather than strictly grammatical, construction), and also who the guys they’re hanging around with are hanging around with.

The Amateur?

Usually there’s nothing improper, much less scandalous, in these relationships. As will be seen below, the Democratic candidates for governor have hired political consultants who work for Democrats, while Republican Brian Dubie is using a firm whose clients are Republicans.

Voters also ought to know who contributes to candidates– not just individual names and addresses, but the specific interests of those individuals, especially the companies for which they work.

Many and varied are the motives of political contributors. Some are simply public spirited and convinced that the candidate to whom they contribute would do the best job. But for others – especially those who work in areas that depend on government spending or are subject to government regulations (most companies) — a campaign donation is also something of an investment.

At the very least, the donor is buying  access. Rare is the governor or legislator who is not more likely to return the call of someone who has given the campaign $1,000, assuming that someone on the elected official’s staff passes along information about the donation with the telephone message.

Someone does.

Alas, Vermont law does not require campaign contributors to disclose their occupations or employers. Perhaps one of the next questions put to all candidates is whether they will urge changing that law so that voters can know which interests are financing their office-holders.

Still, from the campaign finance statements filed by the candidates for governor of Vermont July 15, a few conclusions are possible.

Start with the fact that it is no longer possible to deny that the professionalization of politics has come to Vermont.

Actually, it’s been foolish to deny it for several years, as candidates increasingly raise big bucks, hire expensive consultants, rely on television commercials. But some hope lingered that Vermont could be an exception. Stop hoping. These candidates have hired the top-of-the-line political consulting firms, employees of which are no doubt enriching Burlington and Montpelier hotels and restaurants even as we speak.

With the partial exception of Doug Racine. The Democratic state senator has retained one-time enfant terrible (of Howard Dean’s ill-fated 2004 presidential campaign) Joe Trippi to “do the media,” in the words of campaign manager Amy Schollenberger. But as of July 15, the campaign had paid Trippi’s firm only $5,000. Contrast that to the $10,000 Matt Dunne paid Peter Hart Research Associates or the $18,352 Deb Markowitz has spent for polling by Lake Research Partners.

That’s because, Schollenberger said, Racine is running an “absolutely grass-roots campaign.” This could be an attempt to disguise a disadvantage by calling it an advantage – Racine has had trouble raising money – but he does have more organized grass-roots support than his opponents, having won the endorsement of the teachers union and the state’s largest environmental organization.

(For a brief accounting of which candidate has hired which firm, with some of the firms other clients, scroll down to the end of this post.).

Not that they don’t have grass roots support, too, but the campaigns of Markowitz, who has more money than the other Democrats, and Dubie, who has more money than anybody, are on the other end of the professionalization spectrum.

In addition to her polling firm, Markowitz has spent more than $10,000 with Kennedy Communications, Inc., and her campaign staff, judging from her reported payroll expenses, are larger than those of her Democratic opponents.

But not as large as Dubie’s. In addition to spending $29,150 with Harris Media, the Dubie campaign reported spending $27,905 on polling, $36,322 with OnMessage, Inc. of Crofton, Maryland, for “branding”  and $3,050 with Stormo & Associates of Caledonia, Michigan for “opposition research.”

That’s unusual at this stage of a campaign. Usually, “oppo” research is directed against an identified opponent. But of course Dubie does not yet know who his opponent will be. The firm could be preparing attacks on any of the Democrats, on whoever Dubie assumes the likely winner will be, or on the Vermont Democratic Party in general.

Perhaps simply because he has raised more than anyone else, Dubie’s filing also provides more information indicating the interests that support him. As mentioned in a previous post, Dubie seems to be the favorite of the agribusiness giants of the dairy world. On the same day, February 19, giant dairy producer DFA of Kansas City and Dairylea Cooperative of Syracuse each donated $1,000.

Dubie got $5,000 from the General Electric Corp.’s political action committee, and a $2,000 contribution (actually $7,000 but followed by a $5,000 refund) from Michel Guite, the owner of the Vermont Telephone Company of Springfield.

Dubie also seems to be the preferred candidate of Vermont’s building contractors. Counting only contributions of $1,000 or more, and only from firms or individuals known to be involved in the construction business, Dubie  received at least $20,450 from the industry.

Here is a brief rundown of the major consultants used by the candidates and the other clients those consulting firms have served.

Senator Peter Shumlin: The Feldman Group, based in Washington and headed by Diane Feldman, who once worked with well-known Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg. The firm is no stranger to Vermont politics, having been the consultant for Rep. Peter Welch. Among its other recent clients have been Senators Sherrod Brown of Ohio, Ron Wyden of Oregon, and Al Franken of Minnesota.

(For all the candidates, this post will list only the firm’s recent successful clients; believe it or not, the losers are not mentioned on the firms web sites).

Susan Bartlett: Main Street Communications of Washington. It bills itself as the “political media firm with the best record in the Democratic Party,” but boasts only a few Congressional winners, including Maine’s Democratic House members, John Baldacci and John Olver. Bartlett has also used the Washington polling firm Cooper & Seacrest.

Matt Dunne: Peter D. Hart Research Associates, perhaps the most prestigious of all Democratic polling and political consulting firms. Both of Vermont’s senators, Democrat Patrick Leahy and independent Bernie Sanders, are on the Hart firm’s client list, as are Senators Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, Kent Conrad and Byron Dorgan of North Dakota, Dianne Feinstein of California and Chuck Schumer of New York.

Deb Markowitz: Kennedy Communications, Inc. of Washington, apparently a rather new company. It has been active in state legislative races around the country. Its most high-profile client this year is Rep. Joe Sestak of Pennsylvania, who defeated Republican-turned-Democratic Sen. Arlen Specter in the primary earlier this year.

For polling, Markowitz uses Lake Research Partners, which has polled for Senators Mark Begich of Alaska, Ton Tester of Montana, Debbie Stabenow of Michigan, and Mary Landrieu of Louisiana.

Brian Dubie: Harris Media of Austin, Texas, the conservative Republican firm that worked on Mike Huckabee’s 2008 presidential campaign and helped elect Bob McDonnell as governor of Virginia. Dubie also uses the apparently non-political OnMessage “branding” firm, the Public Opinion Strategies polling firm, perhaps the top-rated Republican pollster, who also did the polling for Gov. Jim Douglas, as well as 15 incumbent Republican senators and independent Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut. Dubie’s “opposition research” firm,  Stormo & Associates, appears to maintain a low profile, or at least has a hard-to-find web site, so information about its other clients could not be obtained. Yet.

The News Guy is slightly indisposed.

No big deal. Happens to everybody from time to time.

He will return Wednesday with renewed vigor.