In the final weeks of Vermont’s gubernatorial race, a super PAC largely funded by the Democratic Governors Association has been vastly outspent by a counterpart funded by the Republican Governors Association, according to recent filings with the Secretary of State’s Office.
The RGA outfit, called A Stronger Vermont, has spent more than $580,000 in the past two weeks backing Lt. Gov. Phil Scott’s campaign, bringing its total this election cycle to nearly $2.4 million. The DGA super PAC, called Our Vermont, has spent just $145,000 in that period, bringing its campaign total to $814,000.
But those top-line numbers only tell half the story. While the DGA has been spending less on its own super PAC, it has been steering large sums of money to one associated with Planned Parenthood.
In the past eight days, the Planned Parenthood Action Fund super PAC has spent nearly $347,000 slamming Scott as favoring restrictions on abortion rights — a charge the Republican contests. According to disclosures filed with the Secretary of State’s Office, only $50,000 of that money has come from entities associated with Planned Parenthood. Far more has come from partisan interests.
State records show that the DGA has has dumped $350,000 into the Planned Parenthood super PAC in the past 10 days. Shelburne mega-donor Lisa Steele has also contributed $10,000, as have Burton Snowboards founders Jake and Donna Carpenter of Stowe.
“These ads are funded by a variety of voices that support our mission, including the DGA,” says Planned Parenthood Action Fund campaign manager Nick Charyk, who previously ran Matt Dunne’s Democratic gubernatorial primary bid.
Charyk disputes the notion that his group is serving as a front for DGA dollars, saying, “We’ve been around for 100 years now and that is not the intent of these ads.” His organization is allowed to coordinate with other super PACs, such as Our Vermont, and it can accept donations from the DGA. But it is barred from discussing strategy with the main branch of the DGA, because that organization coordinates directly with the Minter campaign.
Why would the DGA direct its money to another organization’s super PAC — not its own? Neither Charyk nor DGA spokesman Jared Leopold would directly answer the question, but one possibility is that Planned Parenthood carries with it a certain amount of institutional credibility — particularly among the women and independents both Minter and Scott are courting.
A Vermont Public Radio poll conducted early this month found that 17 percent of women are undecided in the gubernatorial race, compared to 10 percent of men. Twenty-four percent of independents haven’t made up their minds, compared to 13 percent of Democratic-leaning voters and 7 percent of Republican leaners.
A more recent WCAX-TV poll found that only 8 percent of women hadn’t made up their minds — and 10 percent of independents.
“The DGA frequently supports different groups who are working to elect Democratic candidates for governor,” Leopold says. “In Vermont this year, the DGA has supported both Our Vermont and the Planned Parenthood Action Fund.”
While the DGA has been financing Planned Parenthood’s super PAC, EMILY’s List has been financing the DGA’s super PAC. Recent disclosures show that two entities associated with EMILY’s List — Women Vote! and American Women — have contributed a combined $285,000 to Our Vermont in the past week. EMILY’s List, which supports Democratic, pro-choice women running for office, endorsed Minter in February.
Minter has also benefited from a mail and online advertising campaign sponsored by another super PAC, called the Vermont Conservation Voters Action Fund. That group has spent $145,000 backing the Democratic candidate within the past two weeks.
VCV Action Fund is primarily funded by the environmental group League of Conservation Voters, which donated $150,000 to the super PAC early this month. Other top donors include Charlotte renewable energy developer David Blittersdorf ($25,000), Diana Bingham ($16,000), Steele ($13,000), Arthur Berndt ($5,000), Cathleen Miller ($5,000) and Crea Lintilhac ($1,000).
Scott has also drawn support from one other super PAC, run by the Republican State Leadership Committee. That group, which typically supports legislative and lieutenant gubernatorial candidates, spent more than $12,000 on mail mentioning Scott.
Adding up all the outside spending, pro-Minter super PACs have actually outspent pro-Scott groups in the past two weeks. Those backing the Democrat have spent $637,000 in that period, while those supporting the Republican have spent $593,000.
Corrected at 2:56 p.m.: An earlier version of this story misstated the amount of money the Democratic Governors Association has contributed to the Planned Parenthood Action Fund super PAC. It is $350,000.
Related Stories
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
A note about my post: Even though I’m not thrilled with the Democratic leadership in Montpelier, I’ll be voting for Sue Minter because my child suffered most under Republican Gov. Jim Douglas, whose budgets were devastating to many vulnerable Vermonters. Sue is said to be a good listener, perhaps she will listen to parents like me and start holding schools and agencies accountable.
I am disgusted at the low level of political propaganda being flung around VT this election year. The mud sticks to both Democrats and Republicans. This name-calling and divisiveness prevents sensible sensitive discourse, which is necessary for effective legislation. The hypocrisy of both parties around the Choice/Life issue is perhaps the worst example of partisan politics, because this issue is often excruciating for families. As a parent of a child who was born with Down Syndrome, I have seen the effects of this hypocrisy first hand. I have been ostracized by “liberals” in my child’s school district who viewed my choice to give birth to a child with disabilities as somehow irresponsible because my “choice” steals resources from their “perfect” children and adds to their school-tax burden. And while conservative may support my child’s “right to life” they certainly don’t make that choice easy for families! These same “conservatives” slash funding for special education, healthcare and community support for people with disabilities at every opportunity. Both sides need to see that their disingenuous polarizing attitudes harm real people and fragment our communities. If you support “Choice” that means also supporting a family’s decision to raise a child with disabilities, not just their right to choose termination. If you support “Life” you should also support measures which reduce the need for abortion: access to contraception, adequate support for indigent families, and support for people with disabilities. I give both major parties a D- when it comes to their mud slinging around this excruciating issue. Shame on the both of them.
Scott is pro-choice. I am a Democrat. You are a left-wing Democratic party attack dog. Good day.
@WalterCronkite…. LOL. Funny, Republicans would never nominate someone like Pope Francis, a radical who speaks up for the oppressed, opposes corporate greed, stands up for the environment, and is focused on social justice instead of culture war issues. But given the Republican willingness to nominate bellicose wannabe strongman Donald Trump (who praises Putin), it seems that King Jung-Un would find a more welcoming home in the GOP.
@knowyourassumptions. You can claim to be a Democrat. But since you’re hiding behind a fake name, there’s no way to confirm that. You could just as well be sitting at Republican headquarters spewing your personal attacks. (As the old cartoon reminds us “On the Internet, nobody knows you’re a dog” ) But whether you’re voting for Clinton or not, your long posting history of vitriolic attacks against the Democratic Party and Democratic candidates here certainly calls into question whatever self-professed status you have as a Democrat.
But the real point is that for all the Republicans and Scott backers here rising up and loudly accusing Planned Parenthood (and me) of lying or misrepresenting Scott’s record, not a single one of you have seriously disputed the details that have been laid out.
It isn’t a “lie” that Scott has a history of supporting additional restrictions on abortion rights (parental notification, late term ban, no public funds). It isn’t a “smear” that an anti-abortion group has named him as their preferred candidate in the election. It isn’t “false” that he has a history of endorsing virulently anti-choice candidates for President.
It understand that it makes you squirm when holes get poked in Scott’s oh so carefully crafted political image of being “pro-choice” by pointing out that his record is not quite so unequivocal.
But maybe instead of name-calling and insults, you could address those issues instead.
New video! Here’s some truth for you!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PAYtiQkM_x…