Ed Stanak is driven by idealism in his quest to become the state’s next attorney general.He defines his key issue as economic justice.
“I’m still astounded that after 2008 on Wall Street, there’s been no criminal investigation of the major banks,” Stanak said, in an interview at a Montpelier café.
As state attorney general, Stanak says he would attempt to investigate six of the banks that do business in Vermont. Stanak argues that unpunished financial wrongdoing is important for Vermonters who lost out on their 401(k)’s because of the financial crisis. He also believes that millions of dollars were lost in three state retirement funds thanks to Wall Street’s doings.
The federal government has been slow to probe financial crimes associated with the 2008 financial crisis which led to the taxpayer bailout of the nation’s largest institutions, including Bank of America, Citigroup, Merrill Lynch, JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs.
Stanak, a Barre resident, is the former president of the Vermont State Employees Association and a longtime Act 250 district commissioner in central Vermont. His rivals in the race for Vermont attorney general are incumbent Democrat Bill Sorrell and Republican Jack McMullen.
Stanak, who has garnered attention from a number of media outlets, has been the most prominent Progressive Party candidate for statewide office. Though several others, namely Cassandra Gekas, who is running for lieutenant governor, and Doug Hoffer, the contender for state auditor, bear the Progressive label, too, they are also running on the Democratic ticket.
His political positions are in sync with the views of many liberal Vermonters. He wants to shut down Vermont Yankee, legalize marijuana, and completely eradicate the influence of money on politics.
Stanak cites the corrupting influence of corporate and super PAC money on politics.
“I think super PACS, whether from the left or the right, are wrong,” he said. “I don’t really have a clear solution to super PACs. My piece of the puzzle is the for-profit corporations and their influence on elections. If we can deal with that, that’s making major progress right there.”
To curb corporate spending, Stanak suggests that the Legislature tinker with the state’s statutory definition of personhood, by adding the following clause: “For purposes of political free speech in Vermont, corporate persons do not enjoy the same rights as natural persons.”
Though he says the change invites litigation from campaign finance lawyers, and perhaps an unfavorable opinion from a conservative Supreme Court, he’s committed to combating unfettered corporate political spending.
That’s because Stanak views it as fundamentally wrong. He says the issue is akin to legal doctrines enabling slavery or banning women’s votes which were eventually reversed by the Supreme Court.
Stanak says energizing a grassroots political base and urging people to vote for candidates who are not supported by corporate money is an interim solution. “The question becomes whether there’s enough infrastructure out there, among labor union and environmental groups, to be able to mobilize the base,” mused Stanak. “That’s the counter to the money.”
So far, Vermonters First, a conservative PAC has spent more than $800,000.
Stanak’s views on other topics are informed by his past career. Now retired, his previous role as an environmental official administering the state’s Act 250 development permits has shaped his views on Vermont Yankee. He believes there are more subtle ways to combat Entergy, the company that owns the nuclear power plant, besides an uphill struggle in federal courts. Stanak has opposed the plant’s operation for decades and wrote a legal brief against it in 1978.
Stanak says the state has a decent chance at closing the plant by not renewing its thermal discharge permit. Vermont Yankee discharges millions of gallons of hot water into the Connecticut River each year.
Stanak likes to call the Attorney General’s Office “Vermont’s Department of Justice,” which encapsulates his view that the office should empower and protect the so-called 99 percent, or in his words, those who are the “salt of the earth.”
“I’m saying up front that I would be an activist attorney general, I’m not alone in history in taking that position,” said Stanak. “An activist attorney general is consistent with our sense of justice.”
Although Stanak isn’t licensed as an attorney in Vermont, he spent four years as a legal clerk with the Vermont Supreme Court, and taught legal research at Woodbury College.
Stanak’s chances of beating popular Democratic incumbent Bill Sorrell are slim. The last Progressive candidate for attorney general, Charlotte Dennett, won 6 percent of the vote in 2008. Stanak lost a 1984 bid to become a Washington County state senator, running as a Democrat.
Stanak isn’t discouraged, however. He fondly recalls Bernie Sanders’ role as a Liberty Union candidate in 1970s, and Sanders’ gubernatorial bid in 1976.
“History shows us the strength of third party candidates, and their role in our system of government,” said Stanak. “The point here is that I’m running, so that even if I do not win, issues get framed and brought into the debate. … You move the agenda ahead.”
Stanak says he’s shifted the political conversation to address economic justice, finally mentioned by Sorrell in a recent VPR debate, and the war on drugs, with Republican Jack McMullen recognizing that drug abuse is a behavioral issue, not a problem best solved by the criminal justice system.
A series of position papers outlining Stanak’s views are here on his website. Last week Stanak also penned a Q&A outlining his views for the Burlington Free Press
CORRECTION: The story originally read: “To curb corporate spending, Stanak suggests that the Legislature tinker with the state’s Constitution, by adding the following clause: ‘For purposes of political free speech in Vermont, corporate persons do not enjoy the same rights as natural persons.'”
This has been corrected to: “To curb corporate spending, Stanak suggests that the Legislature tinker with the state’s statutory definition of personhood, by adding the following clause: ‘For purposes of political free speech in Vermont, corporate persons do not enjoy the same rights as natural persons.'”
Stanak does not suggest a change to the Constitution, but rather to state statutory provisions.