Blittersdorf sues Dubie and his campaign

Lt. Gov. Brian Dubie, Republican candidate for governor. Oct. 9, 2010. Photo by Terry J. Allen

David Blittersdorf, CEO of AllEarth Renewables, is suing Lt. Gov. Brian Dubie’s campaign for defamation.

The case, which was filed in Chittenden Superior Court Thursday by the Burlington law firm Dinse, Knapp & McAndrews, alleges the Dubie campaign has falsely accused Blittersdorf of “corruption.”

Brian Dubie, Friends of Brian Dubie and Corry Bliss, the lieutenant governor’s campaign manager, are all named in the lawsuit.

Ritchie Berger, Blittersdorf’s attorney, alleges that the defendants, “in their reckless zeal to impugn” Sen. Peter Shumlin, Dubie’s Democratic opponent, “have maliciously chosen to attack Mr. Blittersdorf with false and defamatory statements.”

Berger writes that the statements have been injurious to Blittersdorf’s business and his reputation, and that they have caused “actual harm,” including damage to his reputation, standing in the community, humiliation, embarrassment and mental pain.

In an interview, Berger said Blittersdorf has no interest in being embroiled in politics.
“He has a First Amendment right to support any candidate or cause he believes in,” Berger said. “Dave simply wanted Dubie to stop defaming him that’s all he wanted. Their response was to continue. His options were to let them continue or stand up for his rights and that’s what he’s done. It’s just unnecessary and unfortunate that the Dubie camp has allowed Mr. Bliss to conduct the campaign in that way.”

Blittersdorf is seeking punitive and compensatory damages. He has also asked for a jury trial.

Read the lawsuit: Blittersdorf v. Dubie and Bliss

Calls and e-mails to the Dubie campaign for comment were not returned.

David Blittersdorf

Here is a summary of the events that led to the legal showdown. Shumlin appointed Blittersdorf to the state’s Clean Energy Development Fund Board, and Blittersdorf eventually received $4.3 million in state tax credits for his firm after a bidding process. He also gave $8,000 to Shumlin and $20,000 in contributions to Green Mountain Future, a 527 nonprofit that has been running ads attacking Dubie’s pro-Yankee stance. Shumlin hadn’t received donations before he appointed Blittersdorf to the board – at that point he hadn’t decided whether he would run — and when the conflict became apparent, Shumlin asked Blittersdorf in a publicly released letter to resign from the board, which he did.

Since September, when the gubernatorial campaigns began in earnest, the Dubie campaign has e-mailed press releases to media outlets accusing Shumlin of “trading” $28,000 in “campaign donations” for tax credits to Blittersdorf.

The lawsuit cites a story published in the Burlington Free Press that quotes Bliss accusing Shumlin of “pay-to-play” politics.

Berger’s complaint also refers to language posted on the Web site, which the Dubie campaign launched last week, including quotes from Bliss about an alleged conflict of interest.

The allegation is one of the “Top Eleven Ethical Lapses” the Dubie campaign posted.

Bliss stated that Shumlin “appointed one of his largest campaign contributors to a board where he used his position to write polices that resulted in millions of dollars of tax breaks for himself.” Bliss called this a “clear conflict of interest.” He called for Shumlin to return $28,000 in “campaign contributions.”

Bliss says in the Web post:

This is a shocking level of corruption. Once again, Peter Shumlin is not being honest. Trading more than $4 million in taxpayer money for campaign donations once again shows Peter Shumlin will say or do anything to get elected.

In the Burlington Free Press article that appeared on Oct. 21, Bliss asked: “Was this pay-to-play? Is this a deal Peter [Shumlin] struck?”

Berger writes that “these purported rhetorical questions falsely accuse Mr. Blittersdorf of unethical conduct.”

On Monday, Blittersdorf phoned Dubie, according to the complaint, and asked that he “stop impugning his character, but Defendant Dubie chose, instead, to continue publishing defamatory statements about Mr. Blittersdorf.”

The next day, Blittersdorf’s attorneys wrote to the defendants, asking them to remove the statements from the Web site. According to the complaint, the defendants released the letter to the media and reasserted the “false and defamatory statements.” The Web site language remained intact.

Berger’s complaint alleges that the defendants named in the suit acted negligently or with actual malice because they knew the statements were false, or “they made them with reckless disregard of whether they were true or false.”

Vermont Law School associate professor Donald M. Kreis, a First Amendment expert, said defamation lawsuits are difficult to win in the United States, particularly when they are lodged by public figures, like Blittersdorf.

However, Kreis said the complaint is “not frivolous.” The “pay to play” and “corruption” charges are “potentially sanctionable,” he said.

Kreis, who is a supporter and small contributor to Shumlin, said though Blittersdorf’s lawsuit isn’t directly connected to the Shumlin campaign, the timing of the lawsuit is likely related to the impending election on Tuesday.

Kreis is a member of the law school’s Institute for Energy and the Environment. He recently stepped down from the board of Renewable Energy Vermont. He is a member of the board.

Editor’s note: Ritchie Berger returned a call for comment on Friday morning. His quotes were added at 12:13 Oct. 29, 2010.

Anne Galloway

Comment Policy requires that all commenters identify themselves by their authentic first and last names. Initials, pseudonyms or screen names are not permissible.

No personal harrassment, abuse, or hate speech is permitted. Be succinct and to the point. Comments should be 1000 characters or fewer. If your comment is over 500 words, consider sending a commentary instead.

We personally review and moderate every comment that is posted here. This takes a lot of time; please consider donating to keep the conversation productive and informative.

The purpose of this policy is to encourage a civil discourse among readers who are willing to stand behind their identities and their comments. VTDigger has created a safe zone for readers who wish to engage in a thoughtful discussion on a range of subjects. We hope you join the conversation. If you have questions or concerns about our commenting platform, please review our Commenting FAQ.

Privacy policy
  • This lawsuit seems to be ill advised and certainly could easily backfire in various ways.

    If it were to proceed and eventually be successful down the road somewhere and, if Peter Shumlin wins election, the suit and court case will mire and drag down his administration as evidence is presented on behalf of the defendants.

    It will be continually reported and debated within the newspapers, radio talk shows and television news and commentary shows.

    It will not go away and will just feed as well as bring out the worse that has cropped up with the 2010 gubernatorial campaign: i.e., it will fuel the fire, not quell it.

    Thus, even if David Blittersdorf were to somehow win in all this and again that seems very doubtful, he will also lose quiet a bit in other more serious terms and so will his company as well as Peter Shumlin and, if elected, his administration, which will be defined by it: i.e., it will haunt him and everything he attempts to do, just like it has already haunted him and raised serious questions and concerns about him on the campaign trail.

    The fact is, save the lawyers who will do rather well as long as the suit drags out within the courts as it continues to get fought and later appealed, no matter who wins these type of suits — at least within the context of political candidates and their campaigns — everybody else involved loses.

    Not to mention it seems that politicians and campaigns have greater protection when it comes to free speech issues, no?

  • P.S.

    In addition, can’t we just get this nasty election behind us already. Let us not have to rehash it all over again about who did or said what to whom and who is right or wrong, etc. Give us a break!

  • walter carpenter

    No one can as yet say where this will go, at least Dubie and his campaign is getting back some of what they have dished out.

  • Paul Donovan

    After refusing two opportunities to address this issue, the Dubie campaign just kept making the same accusations. Why should Blittersdorf just roll over for this? You have to draw the line somewhere. Or do you think that the Dubie campaign is so cynical that they figure the lawsuit (which wouldn’t be sorted until long after the votes were in) would hurt Shumlin in the election more than the allegations?

Thanks for reporting an error with the story, "Blittersdorf sues Dubie and his campaign"