Thinking about running against Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) in 2018?
If so, consider this. According to his latest campaign finance report, submitted to the Federal Election Commission last weekend, his senatorial campaign fund has an astounding $5.86 million in cash on hand.
It would be virtually impossible to spend that much money in Vermont, even if Sanders were to face a real challenge. Last time around, Sanders managed to spend $2.6 million in defeating Republican John MacGovern by a massive 45 percentage points. He couldn’t possibly do much better, even if he spent twice as much this time.
So what’s he doing with all that money? A lot of it goes to fueling the machine: fundraising, strategy and consulting. But a goodly chunk has been spent on his large, enthusiastic campaign-style rallies across the country.
That’s kind of an odd thing for a Vermont campaign. It’s completely legal, mind you, but holding a rally in West Virginia or Florida or Arizona has little or nothing to do with attracting votes in Vermont.
Meanwhile, Sanders’ presidential campaign fund is virtually dormant. It still weighs in at $5 million, but there was little raised or spent from the fund during the reporting period for the third quarter.
A recent Newsweek headline blared that Sanders’ presidential fund was $300,000 in debt. That’s technically true but misleading. Sanders has a few unpaid obligations, mostly security costs for campaign events, but weep not for Bernie. He’s sitting on a pile.
Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and Congressman Peter Welch (D-Vt.) also turned in their third-quarter reports. And while they’re not anywhere close to Sanders’ league, they are certainly no slouches.
Welch, facing reelection next year, is sitting on more than $2 million. Leahy, who doesn’t face another campaign until 2022, is coasting along with a mere million. And, unlike Sanders, the two Democrats have raised a lot of their money from political action committees and Washington, D.C., lobbyists and lawyers. Welch took in $81,000 in the third quarter; all but $5,000 came from PACs.
Leahy barely raised any money this time around — only about $14,000 — but when he needs to refill the tank, he benefits greatly from the largesse of special interests that can crank out four-figure checks at will, as previous filings attest.
Leahy and Welch have a ready excuse for this aggressive fundraising: the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision. In a world of virtually unlimited campaign cash, they say, they have no choice but to raise as much money as they possibly can.
But see, here’s the thing. Both Leahy and Welch were doing this long before Citizens United.
In the 2007-8 campaign cycle, Welch raised nearly $1 million and entered 2009 with $630,000 in cash on hand. In the six-year cycle that ended in 2010 (including five pre-Citizens United years), Leahy raised almost $5 million and began a new six-year term with more than $2 million in his campaign fund.
They didn’t need that money to fight the unleashed financial power of conservative mega-donors; they used it to discourage challengers. If you were a Republican on the rise, would you challenge Welch in 2018 knowing he had $2 million to spend? Of course not.
Sanders doesn’t play the D.C. money game, but he is executing a perfectly legal if faintly iffy maneuver with his two campaign funds.
When Team Sanders sends out a fundraising blast, donors are directed to his senatorial fund, not the presidential one. And it’s the senatorial campaign that’s paying for all his out-of-state political travel.
Spending for the three months included $142,000 for event planning and expenses, $18,000 for hotels and rental cars, and $25,000 for airfare.
Oh, wait: Add another $38,000 to the airfare column. The Sanders campaign paid that much to Apollo Jets, a private charter service. All together, you get a healthy $223,000 for three months of travel and events outside Vermont.
And what, pray tell, does any of that have to do with running for reelection in Vermont?
Meanwhile, there’s one expense you won’t find in any of the Three Amigos’ campaign reports. None of them donated to the Vermont Democratic Party, which has been suffering from acute financial embarrassment. In mid-September, the Dems were four days late with a staff payroll. And they entered the last week of the month needing at least $13,000 to meet the next payroll.
So did they make it? “Partially,” says the Dems’ compliance officer, Selene Hofer-Shall. “We are catching up. There are significant pledges on the table.”
Also, she says, the party is enjoying brisk ticket sales for a November 9 fundraiser featuring Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), a pillar of Sanders’ presidential campaign and one of the party’s most dynamic speakers.
Still, the Dems are digging out of a deep hole, and the 2018 campaign season is right around the corner. That may be one reason why the party is still searching for a gubernatorial candidate to supplement the current offerings, environmental activist James Ehlers and 13-year-old Ethan Sonnenborn.
Media Note
Congratulations to my predecessor and Seven Days colleague Paul Heintz, who came home from the conference of the New England Newspaper & Press Association and the New England Society of News Editors with two of the biggest prizes last week. He was named the AP Sevellon Brown New England Journalist of the Year. And Heintz and Seven Days jointly won the Morley L. Piper First Amendment Award.
“In the past year, no one has distinguished himself more than political editor Paul Heintz,” read the Brown Award citation. “Heintz has proven he’s not just a dogged reporter and eloquent writer; he’s a leader in the field.” Beyond his reportage, he was also honored for his leadership in the successful campaign to pass a media shield law in Vermont.
The newspaper shared the Piper Award for standing behind its staffers when they were subpoenaed in the sexual assault prosecution of former state senator Norm McAllister.
Seven Days also won an award for “Death by Drugs: Opiates Claimed a Record Number of Vermonters in 2016,” a story by Mark Davis about opiate overdose deaths in Vermont, told through the stories of 14 victims. “This was powerful work — an unforgettable read,” said the award citation.
One other Vermont newspaper took home a prize. The Brattleboro Reformer was honored for a series called “Andy’s Journey: The Struggles Through ALS,” which chronicled one man’s experience with the ailment also known as Lou Gehrig’s disease. Amy Radder, Maddi Shaw and Kristopher Radder wrote the series.
In this space, we often bear bad tidings of an industry in decline. There’s still plenty of good journalism being done in Vermont — not just at Seven Days and the Brattleboro Reformer, but in newsrooms all over the state.
This article appears in The Tech Issue 2017.
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
Never given a donation to any one of this Vermont triumvirate and never will. Bernie is the most offensive of the three, the epitome of the professional politician who talks the talk but doesn’t walk the walk. Bernie missed all but one Senate vote during the 2016 presidential election campaign. It is hard for me to fathom why anyone supports him. One of the few political dreams I have is the U.S. enacts term limits for Congress and the Supreme Court. Now that would make American great again!
I’m proud to say that I’ve made donations to all three, but most especially to the finest political figure that these United States has to offer, our very own Bernie Sanders. Anyone who says Bernie doesn’t walk the walk is either not paying attention or has his head up his own agenda. If one finds it hard to fathom why anyone supports him, one simply doesn’t understand Vermont or the four out of five Vermonters who do (which is to say, one is like the 1 out of 5 dentists who doesn’t support teeth brushing.) We’ve all witnessed that Bernie always says what he means, means what he says, and acts on it. Bernie’s caterwauling opponent are just embarrassed that he destroys every Republican they muster to run against him. This is because Bernie represents actual people and not merely the GOP’s corporate overlords. And, by the by, the United States DOES have term limits; they’re called elections.
A course sanders has millions, when he dropped (paid off) out of the race, guess you don’t have to pay back the donations you got… Why is he campaigning in other states? He lives in Vt or does he not know this…He sure isn’t acting like a senator of Vt, he cares more about his greedy self than the Vermonters…Other states don’t vote for him, oh wait, he’s getting money from them…having all those houses it cost a lot for upkeep….Think there should be a limit on what politicians can spend..maybe sanders is getting tired of being worth millions, he wants to be a billionaire…
Sticky hand Sanders has to go. #Timetovotethebaldguysout
Hyp. O. Crite. Do as I preach, not as I practice!. I’ll raise as much money as I possibly can, while criticizing others for doing so, and while decrying the system that allows me to do so.
Of course you can explain your Hyp. O. Crite comment with facts that show how Bernie takes money from super pacs and large corporations. I bet you can also cite the elections he has stolen as well.
First, it doesn’t matter where he gets the money. He calls money “obscene.” Yet he’s raising truly obscene amounts when he absolutely doesn’t need it to win Vermont. He’s not running for reelection from California, but from Vermont, remember?
Second, why are you talking about stealing elections? I don’t know why. But I can give you an example of when in my view Bernie dis steal an election. It was in 1990, when he first won the seat in Congress. Close to election day, he was down in the polls to liberal Republican Peter Smith, the incumbent. Smith had recently decided to support a ban on assault rifles. Suddenly, Bernie accused Smith of being “anti-gun” and appealed directly to the NRA vote. The gun nuts came out and gave the election to Bernie. In desperation, Bernie played dirty and won the election. He stole that election.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ho…
That’s how you think he stole an election because he had far more money? Meanwhile, you don’t seem to mind when the Burlington mayoral race features one candidate who out-raises all the rest by a large factor thanks to donations from developers. I get that you don’t like Bernie but your criticism of him here just misses the mark.
I’m not too sure about your reading comprehension skills. My criticism of Bernie on this thread was only about his very hypocritical attitude toward fundraising; it was not about stealing elections. You then asked if I also thought he stole an election. I responded that I didn’t know why you raised that topic, since it was not on point, but I gave you an example of where I (and many others) thought he played so dirty by getting in bed with the NRA that, yes, he did virtually steal the 1990 election. Now you come back and suggest that I’m saying he stole the election because he had more money? No, I didn’t say that. Please read carefully, think, and then type. Thanks.
Assumption, that is a dirty lie, and further, you know it. The NRA came out against Smith for the assault weapon ban vote. Bernie neither accused Smith of being “anti-gun, nor “appealed directly to NRA voter.” Simply never happened; I know, I was there. I’d say get your facts straight, but your MO is distortions and untruths, and has been for the many years you’ve been writing your screeds here. You, sir, have zero credibility.
Hmm. Let’s see. In determining whether Bernie blatantly sided with the gun nuts to win the 1990 election, I suppose we could accept the storyline of Mr. Gallagher, a confessed Bernie-adorer. Someone who just called Bernie “the finest political figure that these United States has to offer.”
Or, we could go with dozens of objective analyses, and the memoir of a Bernie aide during that election.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ho…
https://books.google.com/books/about/Makin…
https://www.sevendaysvt.com/vermont/guns-n…
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/bern…
“Bernie let the NRA do his dirty work on that one to sink Smith. He played it very close to the vest, said Garrison Nelson, a professor at University of Vermont who has known Sanders for around four decades. Instead, Sanders said that he didnt support the proposed Brady Bill, which instituted federal background checks and a five-day waiting period, and vowed that he wouldnt flip-flop on the issue.”
Umm . . . I guess I’ll go with the latter.
Except, Ass, none of those articles or a memoir of a discredited former campaign worker back up your lies that Bernie accused Smith of being “anti-gun” or of appealing “directly to NRA voters.” Bernie always opposed the Brady bill and still does. You are and remain a dealer in distortions and lies.
Except, every single one of those articles, and more, show that Bernie absolutely, positively, deliberately, and knowingly appealed to the gun nuts to help him get elected in 1990. You refuse to acknowledge that because you are so blindly IN LOVE with Bernie that you can’t even see straight. You even resort to calling a journalist and author “discredited” because in your fawning adoration of Bernie you don’t want to hear what he said. Was Rosenfeld officially “discredited” by some authoritative journalistic organization? Did he have his journalist credentials taken away? Did he have his college degree revoked? “Discredited” is a personal judgment by you because you don’t want to see, hear, or read anything unflattering about your “Dear Leader.”
Ass, I was there. I worked for Bernie at the time. You clearly have no idea what you’re talking about. Try getting off your screed-box and getting into the arena. But I’ve read you for years. You’re just a big, loud chicken who talks smack but never gets up off his butt and does anything. You’re worse than a know-nothing; you’re a Do- nothing.
Oh, so you “were there.” Great. So were other people like Rosenfeld who disagree with you. And so were lots of observers who apparently disagree with you. But I guess since you “were there” everyone else is wrong and you are right.
Yeah, we get it. You love Bernie. He’s not human, he’s godlike. He can do no wrong. He’s infallible. Anyone who says anything unflattering about him is wrong. Kinda like Trump.
Idolization syndrome/celebrity worship syndrome/cult of personality is a disorder.
http://verdemagazine.com/celebrity-worship…
http://www.medicaldaily.com/psychological-…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celebrity_wo…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_pers…
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/cult-of-p…
Ass, I never said one of those things, but glad you feel that way. And might I ask, why do you hide behind that silly screen name instead of being man enough to put your own name to your screeds? It’s as if you might be chicken or something…
Ya mean like Mt. Philo?
My real name is Charles Kenyon. I went through this before but you only remember what is convenient for you at the time. I didn’t sign up with Facebook and didn’t realize my real name should be my screen name.