Tomorrow, candidates have to file their campaign finance reports, revealing how much they’ve collected, and from whom. How much they’ve spent, and on what.

Though money and politics is the subject of the bulk of today’s post, those filings will not be discussed here Friday. As regular readers know, the intent of this web site is to cover the stories nobody else is covering, and almost every major news organization will send a reporter to the Secretary of State’s office Thursday afternoon to get the info.

All those reporters can read and do arithmetic at least as fast and as accurately as this one, who is happy to defer to them.

Sen. Bartlett: Enough money?

This one will, however, get copies of the filings, look them over, and discuss them Monday if there is anything worth discussing that the other folks have not already covered.

Speaking of politics and money, a housekeeping note and an appeal. The News Guy, who has a life outside these postings, is going to take some time off in August (exact dates to be determined). Aside from the time off, many of the 39 days and (roughly) ten posts between now and the August 24 primary will be devoted to covering that primary, primarily the contest for the Democratic gubernatorial nomination.

This means going to campaign events, which in turn means driving around the state, which in turn means buying gasoline and occasional lunches and possibly a motel room or two if an important event ends too late and too far away to drive home safely.

It means, in short, spending money, and despite those advertisements you see over on the right, the News Guy’s major source of revenue is reader donations. Readers who have not donated are urged to do so.

Just Look over on the right under “Pages,” where it says, “Donate. It’s easy.

Speaking of politics, money, and news coverage, kudos to the Burlington Free Press, which, first of all, did not run last week’s very bad Associated Press story about the race for Auditor as if there were two, not three, major candidates. Then on Monday, the Freep had a front page story centering on the other guy, Doug Hoffer, who is challenging State Sen. Ed Flanagan for the Democratic nomination. (The winner will take on Republican incumbent Tom Salmon).

One of the papers that did run the bad AP story, the Brattleboro Reformer, then used the AP’s corrective (but not correction; it didn’t acknowledge the earlier story) about the Democratic primary, and also had a staff-written story about Hoffer.

But the Barre-Montpelier Times-Argus and the (jointly owned) Rutland Herald only appended a semi-correction to a letter to the editor, promising to do better in the future and saying “(T)he Associated Press was in error by not including Doug Hoffer in its article.”

Yeah, but you were in error, too, fellas. Editors ought to know who is running for major statewide office.

Okay, now to those campaign finance reports, even though we don’t yet know who raised how much.

Except that we sort of do.

One may take, as the saying goes, to the bank, that Lt. Gov. Brian Dubie, the only Republican seeking the governorship, will report having raised more than any of the five Democrats. A couple of weeks ago, one of Dubie’s senior campaign staffers mentioned the figure of $800,000. Sure, he could have been bragging. But that would have been foolish. The exact figure will be known to all the world Thursday evening. The smarter move would have been to low-ball the expectation. Dubie has probably raised more than 800 grand.

As to the Democrats, it’s all but certain that Secretary of State Deb Markowitz will report raising more money, and Sen. Susan Bartlett less, than their three competitors. Markowitz’s campaign aides have not thrown around a number, a la the Dubie camp. But they are obviously operating under the assumption that their candidate will lead the money parade as she did in the earlier filing last summer.

Bartlett effectively acknowledged she’d be last, issuing a statement Tuesday afternoon conceding that after the numbers are in the “conventional ‘wisdom’ will be that my candidacy is in last place.”

But Bartlett argued that “there have been many Vermont elections in which the highest spender hasn’t been successful, I’ve won some of those elections and plan to do it again in August.”

Leaving the three guys, Sens. Doug Racine and Peter Shumlin and former Sen. Matt Dunne, perhaps in that order.

Or perhaps not. Dunne will no doubt have the least of the three, but Shumlin has bought television advertising time while Racine has not, perhaps meaning that Shumlin has more money to spend.

Or just that Racine is biding his time and saving his money for later. Amy Shollenberger, his campaign manager, said the campaign was “working on  a paid media strategy for sure,” and exploring “different options.”

Which could mean that the campaign isn’t sure it will be able to afford much TV time.

“We’re running a really grass-roots campaign,” Shollenberger said.  “It’s different from some of the others. We relying on a lot of volunteer help.”

So say officials of all the Democratic campaigns except Markowitz’s.

“The ground game in this race is going to be very important,” said Shumlin Campaign Manager Alex MacLean. “It’s going to be mail, phone calls, and canvassing, because we’re targeting such a small number of people.”

Kevin  O’Holleran of the Dunne camp had a similar message, saying the candidate who “comes in with the most money and is able to buy a whole bunch of TV time isn’t going to be successful. We’re building up more of a grass roots campaign.”

All that could be the denial and/or desperation of losers.

Or, in this case, it might be true.

Because the turnout really is likely to be quite small. Political Scientist Eric Davis suggests no more than 60,000 voters in the Democratic Primary. And the estimates go down from there, down to as low as 30,000.

Just to put this into some context, in 2008, Democratic candidate Gaye Symington got 69,534 votes finishing third in the governor’s race after running one of the most bumbling campaigns ever. Not just ever in Vermont. Ever anywhere. Yes, that was a general election, Still, her total would have to be considered the rock-bottom Democratic vote, a rock-bottom not likely to be reached next month.

If these low estimates turn out to be accurate, reaching the “masses” (even just the Democratic-voting masses) may be less important than mobilizing committed supporters, appealing to two or three socio-political niches, and getting loyal voters to the polls.

It would be kind of like “the old days”(“old” meaning back about 1980) when primary campaigns worried less about TV ads than about “identifying your ones and twos” (committeds and likelies) and arranging for enough high-school seniors and bored housewives to drive them to the polls.

An old-fashioned election. How Vermontish. It’s the political equivalent of eating local food, fixing up vintage houses, wearing fleece vests to dress up. It might work, Susan Bartlett is right. More money does not necessarily lead to victory.

But not enough money necessarily leads to defeat. The Democrats may be about to find out how much is enough.

On the assumption that attention spans and (especially) appetites for solemn matters will be low this semi-holiday morning, the discussion of a rather solemn subject will be delayed until Wednesday, leaving today open for: a couple of updates; a political note or two; the posing of a question.

Update One: The one reporter who was planning to go to the Democratic Party fund-raiser a week ago Sunday ended up not going after all. Neither, as earlier acknowledged, did the News Guy, despite having made a stink about the Dems (subsequently reversed) decision to close the event.

But the point holds. When a public figure speaks at an event open to everyone (willing to pay) at a public accommodation, reporters ought to be given reasonable access because the public figure might say something the public should know.

Update Two: Newport Mayor Paul Monette, apparently aware that his city might become the laughing stock of the whole country (think what Jon Stewart might have done with this) used his veto power to squelch a city council decision banning the use of any French words on signs welcoming visitors to town. (See A Vermont House of Commons, June 28).

Bienvenue, nos amis.

Political Note One: The June 25 post, What the Polls Mean (and What They Don’t) noted that a clear picture of how the Democratic primary for governor shaped up wouldn’t be available until later this month, when WCAX-TV (Channel 3) was scheduled to make public results from a survey by the Research 2000 firm, which has been polling for the station for years.

Don’t hold your breath.

For reasons far too complicated (and legally treacherous) to explore here in detail, Research 2000 may not be polling in Vermont soon, or perhaps ever. After questions were raised about how the firm conducted its surveys, one of its major customers, the liberal web site Daily Kos, sued Research 2000, accusing it of “fraudulently manufacturing phony results.”

In response, Research 2000 president Del Ali (who has been cooperative and candid with the News Guy in the past) called the allegations in the suit “pure lies.” However the legal case gets untangled, the scheduled Vermont polling seems to be on hold. Channel 3 News Director Anson Tebbetts said Friday he was “still looking into it,” and had not been able to reach Ali by phone.

“We’ve used this guy for a very long time,” said Tebbetts. “It’s hard to read what’s really going on.”

Political Note Two—Despite the disinclination to pick on a campaign which is going nowhere anyway, some of the material emanating from Dan Freilich is too tempting to ignore.

As most voters probably do not know, Freilich is challenging the renomination U.S. Sen. Patrick Leahy in the Democratic primary. On Freilich’s web site the other day, he proclaimed that one of his “three basic but rarely adhered to political principles” would be “country ahead of party (no ‘automatic caucasing’.)”

“Caucusing?” OK, The News Guy will plead guilty to pedantry here, but this was not an oral slip of the tongue. It was written, and, as one of merely three “basic principles,” should have been checked over.

But that’s not all. Freilich advocates a single-payer, government-run universal health insurance system, a perfectly reasonable position which many Vermonters (maybe even most) share. Interviewed on Vermont Public Radio’s Vermont Edition the other day, he said that President Obama and Democrats in Congress, including Leahy, should have held out for such a system rather than passing the health care law which just (partly) took effect.

Even if they did not immediately have the votes for a single payer system, Freilich said (not in these exact words; the News Guy does not take notes while driving, and no transcript is available)  Obama and the Democrats could have held off and arranged a “discussion” with the American people which might have led to adoption of a single-payer system.

They could have? With a well-disciplined opposition party determined to block passage of anything? With a media culture shaped to no small extent by a faction which has slipped the bonds of rationality, if not sanity?

Not hardly. Folks who put themselves forward, however futilely, for major office, ought to behave like grown ups.

Now the question: Can the government of Vermont find its behind with both hands?

The question is inspired, if not required, by recent revelations that high-ranking officials have, quite simply, fouled up. For years, however some Vermonters may have disagreed with Gov. Jim Douglas’s policies, few argued that he didn’t run a tight ship. Of late, that ship has sprung a few leaks.

First, the news that the sex offender registry does not include the names of some people who should be on it, and apparently does include the names of some who should not be on it.

Second, state officials failed to meet a federal deadline for arranging health insurance for low-income people with medical problems.

Third is the continuing failure of the State Hospital for the mentally ill to meet federal standards, a failure that has cost the state millions in federal aid and will cost another $9.7 million this year, according to former State Sen. Jim Leddy.

Ok, there are extenuating circumstances. The Federal Government is not always the world’s most flexible outfit. The sex offender registry is a relatively new operation. Finding an acceptable alternative to the State Hospital situation ain’t easy.

Still, these are the problems state governments are supposed to solve, especially when not solving them costs money.

At the dependably anti-Douglas web site Green Mountain Daily, Julie Waters writes that these mistakes are the result of a government led by “people who don’t believe in government.”

A plausible contention, neither confirmable nor refutable. But Jim Douglas is no Tea-partier, nor did he appoint any to high office. Just as likely is that, as the Douglas Administration heads into its last months, its department heads are tired, perhaps bored, and no doubt looking for their next jobs. It can be distracting.

That’s a possible explanation, not an excuse.

Then of course there’s the simple politics of the matter. The constituencies being ill-served, the poor who are either physically or mentally ill, don’t have much clout.

Especially the mentally ill, who, as Leddy said in the Burlington Free Press column he wrote about the State Hospital the other day, remain stigmatized.

Sometimes — stigmatized, powerless and frustrated — mentally ill people take their own lives. As it happens, in Vermont, perhaps the healthiest state in the union, the suicide rate is higher than the national average.

The somber subject to be dealt with for the rest of the week.

Today’s post is a report on campaign finance which also appeared on the VT Digger web site.

But first a note: The News Guy’s intent was to include with Wednesday’s post a photograph, taken by himself, of the view from the Dunn property, the subject of that post. Owing to technological deficiencies (of, as it turned out, the person, not the system) the photo did not get attached. Subsequently, it has been (we can all learn) and readers are encouraged to scroll  down to take a look.

It’s campaign time, and all around Vermont the candidates for governor are on the job and on the road.

The five Democrats have appeared together at close to 40 forums, or “debates” as they are not quite accurately called. (Lt.Gov. Brian Dubie, assured the Republican nomination, declines invitations to participate). All of the contenders sit for interviews with reporters, speak to various gatherings, and even do a little street-corner glad-handing.

But there’s one thing none of them stop doing—raising money.

On their web sites, on their cell phones as they head from one event to the next, early in the morning over breakfast or late at night over whatever, the candidates are asking for money. They ask supporters, friends, family, acquaintances, businesses, unions, interest groups, and lobbyists, who have a vested interest in contributing at least a little bit to any potential winner.

The fund-raising beat goes on all around Vermont, and beyond. Though all the campaigns like to brag about how they rely on the small contributions of individual Vermonters, they also raise as much as they can out of state. Sen. Peter Shumlin was in Boston the week before last at a fund-raiser featuring appearances by best-selling authors Stephen King and John Irving. Earlier this month, Dubie went to Washington for a fund-raiser hosted by Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell.

And how much are all these candidates raising?

Patience. The answer to that question is not far off. The candidates have to file their campaign finance information with the Secretary of State’s office on July 15. Then the world will know how much they have raised and spent since the last time they had to file—a year ago, July 15, 2009.

No, that was not a typo. Under Vermont law, candidates have to file their “finance disclosure” forms on July 15 of the odd-numbered year, and then “40 days before the primary election (that’s this July 15) and on August 25, September 25, (and) October 25.”

That’s all until the election. The law says that “not later than 40 days after the general election, candidates must file a final report which lists a complete accounting of all contributions and expenditures.”

But by then, whoever has won has won.

According to Mike Wessler of the National Institute on Money in State Politics, Vermont’s campaign finance reporting requirements are by no means the most lenient in the country. But they aren’t among the most stringent, either. In fact, they are among the weakest in the Northeast.

Were these candidates running in New Hampshire (all this info from the National Institute’s web site), they would have had to report their financial information last May and November, once this August, twice each in September and October. The candidates in Maine have six reports due from last summer until Election Day, New York candidates have to file eight times, and Massachusetts statewide campaigns must file 10 financial reports in the election year alone, after a year-end report last December.

Not long from now, according to some experts, all this filing deadline business might have become a quaint memento of the past. The technology already exists, they say, to make public campaign contributions as they come in and expenses as they go out.

“There’s no reason you couldn’t have all online contributions and expenses in real time,” said Gabriela Schneider, the communications director of the Sunlight Foundation in Washington.

By and large, Vermont’s campaign finance laws are among the nation’s weakest. Corporations and unions are allowed to contribute to candidates, which is one reason the recent, controversial Citizens United v. F.E.C. U.S. Supreme Court decision has no impact on state races in Vermont (though one day it could affect elections for the U.S. Senate or House).

None of this means that there is a lot of campaign money hanky-panky going on in Vermont. In fact, one reason the laws are relatively mild is that, historically, nothing harsher seemed necessary.

“In Vermont, there’s so little corruption and there’s so little money, there’s been no need for tougher laws,” said Kevin Ellis, who has been following Vermont politics for years as both a reporter and now one of Montpelier’s most influential lobbyists.

Not everyone agrees with Ellis’ assessment.

“I don’t buy that argument,” said Gayle Zatz of Vermont’s chapter of Common Cause. “Things happen here. They happen on a smaller scale than in New York or California, but they definitely happen. Because they’re smaller, we don’t know about them.”

She could be right, but so vague an argument is unlikely to persuade many voters. One of Zatz’s colleagues, who did not want to be identified, pointed to the close connection between the Douglas administration and Entergy, the owner of the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant.

“If we delved into Entergy’s contributions,” she said, “we might find out why” the administration supports relicensing the plant.

And what was the extent of Entergy’s contribution to Douglas’ campaign?

According to researchers at the National Institute on Money in State Politics, it was zero.

At least as far as we know.

But there’s a lot we don’t know because Vermont’s campaign finance laws are so weak. Unlike most states, Vermont does not require contributors to list their employers or their professions. So unless someone can get a list of the names of all officials and employees of Entergy (or any other company or interest group) it’s all but impossible to know how much that company and its supporters contributed to a candidate.

Out at the Helena, Mont., headquarters of the National Institute (or its easier to remember nickname “followthemoney.org”) researchers try to subvert Vermont’s lack of transparency.

“I look for patterns,” said Anne Bauer, the researcher who handles Vermont. “I look for multiple contributions from certain towns or addresses. I might Google a name to see if I can find a connection. It’s good old-fashioned research.”

But in the case of Vermont, she can find only a little more than half of the employers or professions of the contributors.

In addition, she said, there are many ways to hide the real source of contributions. A company can urge its workers to contribute to a political party, which in turn can make unlimited contributions to Vermont candidates. Republican Party committees were Douglas’s biggest donors, contributing about 18 percent of his campaign funds.

None of this means that Vermont is a sinkhole of political corruption. Kevin Ellis was right. There is “so little money” in Vermont politics relative to, say, national politics, that the potential conflicts of interest involved are not nearly comparable.

Members of Congress need (or think they do) millions for their re-election campaigns, and are constantly raising money. Much of that money is raised by lobbyists who host fund-raising receptions, arrange direct mail contribution drives, or arrange for their clients to do the same. When that lobbyist visits a congressional office, then, it is often the lobbyist who is the dominant party, the member of Congress who is the supplicant, ready to do the bidding of the lobbying firm and its clients.

It doesn’t work that way in Vermont. To begin with, few Vermont legislators have offices for lobbyists to visit. More important, running for the Legislature in Montpelier is cheap. With the exception of Chittenden County senate races, legislative campaigns in Vermont are likely to cost between a few hundred and a few thousand dollars. With a little help from the family and close friends, many a lawmaker can finance his or her own campaign, meaning the legislator is not beholden to the lobbyist seeking support for a pet issue.

There is, though, one exception to the state’s low-budget politics: the governor. Running for governor, even in Vermont, has gotten expensive. The candidates need money, meaning they are tempted to take it from anywhere they can get it. Jim Douglas spent more than $1.2 million getting re-elected in 2008. Already this year, a Dubie campaign aid boasted that the lieutenant governor’s campaign has raised $800,000. If true, Dubie is on track to spend perhaps $2 million before the election.

In last year’s filings, Democratic Secretary of State Deb Markowitz had raised more than $190,000 for her campaign for governor. Her campaign manager, Paul Tencher, said the campaign would cost at least “several hundred thousand dollars” up to the Aug. 24 primary. With all the Democrats likely to raise at least a few hundred thousand dollars, total spending for the 2010 campaign will probably top $3 million, and while the winner won’t necessarily by the one who raised the most money, he or she will have raised a lot, and will owe something to his or her fund raisers.

The traditional political response is that, in the words of former Gov. Howard Dean, “Money gets you access; it doesn’t get you the decision.”

When it comes to politics and governing, though, access is worth a lot. No doubt the contributors think it is worth what they pay. The traditional political response to pleas for tighter campaign financing laws is that transparency is all the public needs. Possibly true, but real transparency is not, right now, what the public gets.