The Vermont Democratic Party filed a campaign finance complaint on Thursday with Attorney General William Sorrell against Lt. Gov. Brian Dubie and the Republican Governors Association. The Party has asked Sorrell’s office to investigate an advertisement sponsored by the RGA.
Paul Tencher, the newly named manager of the VDP’s coordinated campaign, alleges that Dubie and the RGA broke the state’s campaign finance law. Tencher accuses the two organizations of coordinating efforts to create “Vision for Vermont,” an ad that began airing on local television stations Aug. 19. Gov. Jim Douglas narrates the ad, which features clips of Dubie talking with Vermont constituents and business owners.
View the add: www.visionforvermont.com
Under Vermont law, an organization can spend unlimited amounts of money on behalf of a candidate as long as the activities are independent of a candidate’s campaign. In order for an expenditure to be independent, it “must not have been intentionally facilitated, solicited or approved by the candidate” or by an “agent” of the candidate (a staffer or volunteer.) Candidates and agents of their campaigns cannot communicate with outside organizations about expenditures that exceed $3,000.
The complaint alleges that the Dubie campaign directly aided in the production of an advertisement sponsored by the RGA. Tencher claims the two organizations made arrangements for filming several campaign events, and the expenditure cannot be considered independent. Instead, he argues, the ad, which he estimates cost more than $30,000, is an in-kind donation, subject to the $3,000 campaign finance law limit.
Tencher also names Gov. Jim Douglas in the complaint, who he said, “acted as an agent of both the Republican Governor’s Association and ‘Friends of Brian Dubie.’”
The complaint cites a similar case in 2004. The RGA bought $300,000 worth of advertising that year for Gov. Jim Douglas in his run against Burlington Mayor Peter Clavelle, according to a Times Argus story published on Oct. 27, 2004. The Vermont Democratic Party asked Sorrell to investigate; the RGA voluntarily offered information about how much it had spent on the ad blitz; and a Chittenden County Superior Court judge ruled that the ads cease – days before the General Election. Since then, campaign finance rules for political action committees have been clarified, according to Mike McShane, an assistant Attorney General.
Tencher said the ruling wasn’t “handed down for weeks,” and that gave Douglas an advantage over Clavelle.
The complaint is Tencher’s first official act as the new coordinated campaign manager for the Vermont Democratic Party. He was officially named to the position this week. Tencher is the former campaign manager for Deb Markowitz, the Vermont Secretary of State, who placed third in the recent Democratic gubernatorial primary.
“This is a precedent set by Washington Republicans and we can’t let them get away with it,” Tencher said. “I’m protecting Peter Shumlin and the rest of our candidates.”
The Dubie campaign flatly denies it coordinated efforts with the RGA to produce the ad.
Corry Bliss, Dubie’s campaign manager, didn’t return calls for comment. In a statement, Bliss wrote: “We are diligent in adhering to both the letter and the spirit of the law. Let me be perfectly clear in saying we had absolutely nothing to do with the RGA’s ad.”
Bill Stenger, president of Jay Peak Resort, who is featured in the ad, told the Burlington Free Press he was with Dubie “for the duration of his Aug. 14 visit” and though someone was shooting video, he “never saw any discussion or choreographed interaction between Brian and anybody involved with the camera.”
Chris Schrimpf, spokesman for the RGA, responded via e-mail that his organization “fully complied with the law.” Schrimpf did not return phone calls.
The idea that Douglas was acting as an “agent” for the RGA is absurd, according to David Coriell, the governor’s spokesman.
“I don’t think their accusation is valid,” Coriell said in an interview. “Gov. Douglas was asked to do a voiceover for the RGA and he agreed. It doesn’t make him an agent of the organization. He is well within his bounds to support RGA and Brian Dubie.”
Coriell said every Republican governor is a member of RGA and membership doesn’t make Douglas an agent of the organization by default.
Here is a breakdown of the Vermont Democratic Party’s complaint:
1. Some of the footage in the film comes from private campaign events, according to the two page complaint. Because the lieutenant governor does not publish a public schedule, Tencher claims the only way RGA could have known about the events was through communication with the Dubie campaign. Scheduling a film crew to meet Dubie at a campaign stop constitutes collusion, Tencher writes.
2. Witnesses say Dubie was transported by “agents” of RGA to an event used in a filming sequence for the ad, according to Tencher.
3. The video footage includes “fully staged interactions” between Dubie and private citizens.
4. The RGA has spent more than $30,000 on the ad, not including production costs.
5. Tencher cites the voiceover and fundraising events sponsored by Douglas as examples of his role as a double “agent” – for the Dubie campaign and the RGA, of which he is a member.
The Secretary of State’s office requires organizations to file mass media expenditure disclosure forms within 24 hours of a media buy in the last 30 days before an election. The Sept. 15 campaign finance reports will list expenditures for candidates, parties and political action committees.
McShane said the AG’s office will send a letter on Friday asking the Dubie campaign and the RGA to respond to the VDP complaint within a week. After that, Sorrell will decide whether the matter needs to be investigated. Under statute, the AG’s office may request (or subpoena) additional evidence, such as e-mails and telephone calls.
Here is an interpretation of campaign finance statute 17 VSA 2809, from the Vermont Secretary of State’s office.
The campaign finance law sets no limits on expenditures that are made totally independently from a campaign; and that are not “related expenditures” as defined in 17 V.S.A. §2809. If a person or single source, acting alone and independently, chooses to make expenditures to urge support or defeat of a candidate or group of candidates, there are no regular campaign finance filings required and there are no limits on the amount that can be spent. If the individual’s independent expenditure is an electioneering communicationsupporting or urging defeat of a clearly identified candidate, then the advertisement must typically include “paid for by [name and address].”17 V.S.A.§§2891,2892
When a political committee or political party makes an independent expenditure that is not a related expenditure, the expenditure must be reported by the political party or political committee, but will not be reported by the candidate or candidates involved.
The campaign finance law defines related expenditures. To be an independent expenditure, the expenditure must not have been intentionally facilitated, solicited or approved by the candidate. 17 V.S.A. § 2809 When you analyze whether an expenditure was intentionally facilitated, solicited or approved, we advise you to apply Vermont agency law, and assume that if an expenditure was facilitated, solicited or approved by an agent, whether staff or volunteer, that it will count as a related expenditure. For example, when a candidate is represented by staff or a volunteer on a coordinating committee for a political party, if that committee plans a direct mail activity in support of the candidate, that candidate will likely have facilitated the mailing through the staff person’s involvement.
In addition, when a candidate and a single source, political committee, or political party use the same consultant or vendor, great care needs to be exercised so that the independence of an expenditure is not compromised. Each activity and relationship will be examined on a case by case basis. The analysis will turn on whether the consultant also fits the definition of agent of the candidate; and if the consultant would be considered an agent, then whether the consultant/agent has intentionally facilitated, solicited or approved an expenditure that could be imputed to the candidate.
Additional Reporting Requirements for Certain Mass Media Activities*:
*“Mass media activities” include, but are not limited to, television commercials, radio commercials, mass mailings, literature drops, central telephone banks and robotic phone calls, that include the name or likeness of a candidate for office.
Under 17 V.S.A. §2893, any person who spends a total of $500.00 or more for mass media activities in support of a clearly identified candidate within 30 days of a primary or general election must report these expenditures to the Secretary of State, and to the candidate whose name or likeness was included, within 24 hours of making the expenditure. This mass media report is in addition to the periodic campaign finance disclosure forms. The report must identify the person, persons, or group who made the expenditure and include the name of the candidate or candidates involved. This mass media report applies whether or not the expenditure was made by a candidate for his or her own campaign, or by a third party. Forms for mass media reports are available on our website or upon request from the Elections Division. Note: For the purposes of mass media activities, a person shall be treated as having made an expenditure if the person has executed a contract to make the expenditure.
