The Burlington Free Press debate between attorney general candidates Bill Sorrell, Jack McMullen and Ed Stanak started with a snipe. Minutes into the debate, McMullen attacked incumbent Bill Sorrell for being weak on crime.
“Drug-related crime has really exploded in that period [of the past 18-24 months],” McMullen said. “That’s a primary issue. … This area needs to be given higher priority, and that’s the chief basis for my candidacy.”
McMullen said St. Albans Mayor Liz Gamache and Rutland Mayor Chris Louras, who’d told him they’d felt “overwhelmed” by drug-related crime recently, want more help from the AG.
Sorrell cited his office’s “aggressive work” in criminal justice, use of DNA to apprehend criminals, drug prosecutions, and the high profile murder cases of Michelle Gardner-Quinn and Patricia Scoville. Throughout the debate Sorrell touted his experience as a criminal lawyer, especially as Chittenden County state’s attorney. McMullen, who doesn’t have a license to practice in Vermont, has no criminal law experience.
The candidates also sparred over whether the AG should be an activist and propose changes to legislation.
Progressive Stanak, running explicitly on an activist platform, says he’d investigate financial misbehavior on Wall Street and work to repeal the Citizens United Supreme Court ruling, which confirmed corporate personhood and allowed for unlimited corporate political spending.
Sorrell described himself as a “moderate activist.” He has recommended a number of measures to the Legislature, including civil and criminal penalties for hazing, a sugar sweetened beverage tax and death with dignity.
McMullen said he’d refrain from any sort of political activism because he believes lawmaking should be left to legislators.
Sorrell defended his decision to move forward with the state’s appeal of a lawsuit over the regulation of Vermont Yankee. McMullen said he wouldn’t continue with the appeal, as the state would likely lose, with a price tag of between $4 million to $8 million.
The debate ended with a more philosophical conversation on money in politics and campaign finance reform. Stanak held that political campaigns should be publicly financed with limits, but acknowledged, “That will never happen in my lifetime; that will never happen in the lifetime of my children.”
Stanak said, “Discussion of existing campaign law is a little bit like discussing how many angels fit on the head of a pin. It doesn’t really do anything to move the ball down the field.”
