Democrat Nikhil Goyal has raised at least $138,000 in his bid for state Senate, a record-shattering amount that has fueled concerns about the role of money in Vermont politics.
Goyal had spent roughly $30,000 of his fundraising total as of July 1, the most recent campaign finance reporting deadline. A few days later, he reported a $21,000 mass media expenditure: postcards mailed to many of the households he’s seeking to represent in the Chittenden-Central district.
While the full extent of his fundraising efforts won’t be disclosed until the next reporting deadline, which falls on August 1, he’s sure to have brought in even more money over the past four weeks, leaving him with tens of thousands of dollars on hand before the primary.
Goyal’s fundraising haul is unprecedented in a campaign for Vermont’s citizen legislature. The closest comparison is the $125,000 that Maplefields owner Skip Vallee spent on his unsuccessful 2000 Senate bid, $60,000 of which came from his own pocket.
This year, Goyal is not alone in raking in the cash. Several other Senate challengers are on pace to raise amounts that would have been unheard of 10 years ago. They include Democrat Hannah Sessions, a farmer running for the state Senate in Addison County, and Elaine Haney, a longtime local politician who’s competing, along with Goyal and two other candidates, for one of three seats representing the Chittenden-Central district. Both had brought in $53,000 as of July 1. In Windsor County, lawyer Ben Brickner, a Democrat making his first run for the state Senate, has raised nearly $65,000.
By contrast, only two Senate candidates had raised more than $40,000 by July 1 in the 2024 primaries.
The first-time candidates in the running this year say substantial fundraising is necessary to overcome the built-in advantages of incumbency, especially when mail and advertising costs are rising.
It’s unclear whether their bets will pay off. Some veteran lawmakers are worried about the trend.
It’s concerning to see Vermont races moving in this direction, where you have to pay to play.
Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky
“It’s concerning to see Vermont races moving in this direction, where you have to pay to play,” said Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (P/D-Chittenden-Central), who is one of two incumbents seeking reelection in the three-seat district. “I don’t think that is how we keep the system accessible.”
Concerns about the role of money in politics aren’t new, nor are they unique to Vermont. The debate has intensified nationally since the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision, which loosened the restrictions on corporate political spending. Many fear the U.S. electoral system has devolved into one in which big donors can buy access and influence. So-called super PACs have poured money into some of Vermont’s recent statewide races, although those for the citizen legislature have largely been spared.
Bert Johnson, a political science professor at Middlebury College, said he’s less concerned about the “standard Hollywood version” of a sinister wealthy donor throwing money at a candidate in exchange for a certain vote in the state Senate.
“What’s more likely is that people who have wealthy allies have a better time raising money,” Johnson said.
It’s not surprising that campaigns have been getting more expensive, Johnson said. The basic costs of running a campaign — printing mailers, buying lawn signs and taking out advertisements — have steadily increased.
Also predictable: The most expensive race this cycle is playing out in Chittenden-Central, which includes much of Burlington as well as Winooski, Essex Junction and parts of Essex and Colchester. To win a Senate seat has long been difficult for challengers in Vermont’s most populous county. Once a single six-seat district, the monolithic Chittenden district was broken into three several years ago in part because of complaints that the previous configuration gave incumbents too much of an advantage.
The decision of Senate President Pro Tempore Phil Baruth’s (D/P-Chittenden-Central) not to seek reelection has created a rare open seat. The Chittenden-Central Democratic primary ballot includes four names: Goyal, Haney, Vyhovsky and incumbent Sen. Martine Gulick. Voters pick three.
Goyal, a 31-year-old adjunct sociology professor at the University of Vermont, makes no apologies for his fundraising success. He said he’s used the money to combat what he believes to be his biggest electoral disadvantage. Although he has authored a critically acclaimed book, Live to See the Day: Coming of Age in American Poverty, and has been involved in politics for most of his adult life, serving as an adviser to U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Goyal isn’t very well known locally. He has never served as an elected official.
Goyal’s funding allowed him to produce a high-quality video advertisement that resembles those seen in national campaigns. The ad has been airing on YouTube and social media platforms.
“I started this race with single-digit name recognition,” he said.
Haney, who, as the former executive director of Emerge Vermont, helped train Democratic women to run for office, has also felt pressure to get her name out there. While she’s well known in Essex and Essex Junction, where she has served on the local governing boards, she has a lower profile in Burlington.
She said she expects to raise about $60,000 by the August 1 filing deadline. She’s spent roughly $45,000 so far, a good chunk of which has gone toward paying a campaign manager. She’s also spent close to $11,500 on postcards and another $4,000 on newspaper and online advertisements.
Haney said she’s tried to raise just what she needs to execute her plan and “not a dollar more.”
The two newcomers are quick to differentiate their fundraising efforts.
Goyal stressed that his haul has been entirely donation-based, while Haney kicked off her campaign with a $5,000 personal loan. Haney counters that the vast majority of her donations have come from within the district, while about 40 percent of Goyal’s are from out of state.
Goyal shrugs off the criticism. Many of those donations resulted from an endorsement by Indian American Impact, a national nonprofit that seeks to promote South Asian candidates, he said. As the son of Indian immigrants, Goyal said, he’s proud to receive support from people he’s never met who want to see themselves better represented in U.S. politics.
Goyal said he doesn’t expect to spend all of his campaign cash. Even if he wins the primary, he’ll donate some of his money to other legislative candidates in the general election, he said. He’d have the luxury of doing so because there are no Republican candidates running in his district.
He also floated the idea of funding bus trips to Canada so that Vermonters could purchase cheaper prescription drugs there — something Sanders, his former boss, has previously done.
He and Haney both said that, if elected, they wouldn’t expect to fundraise as much money next time around. “I wouldn’t have as much ground to cover,” Haney said.
The challengers have a point, according to Johnson, the political science professor. Incumbents dominate news coverage and have more time to engage with their constituency while in office, so it makes sense that they spend less during a campaign to get their message across.
Political scientists have warned that spending limits, a commonly proposed campaign finance reform, could actually hinder competition, depending on how low the ceiling is set, Johnson said.
And yet, the incumbents Goyal and Haney are up against raised far less money when they each first sought a seat in the state Senate. Gulick, who ran her first Senate campaign four years ago, had raised only about $11,000 by the primary. Vyhovsky, who was first elected to the Senate in 2022, had reported less than $4,000.
While Gulick is working with a similar amount so far this cycle, Vyhovsky said she’s been forced to increase her budget in response to the growing expense of running a campaign. “Postage is more. Printing is a lot more,” she said. As of July 1, she’d raised $18,000, on top of $8,000 carried over from a previous campaign.
Vyhovsky said she wasn’t looking to match the totals of her competitors.
“There’s only so many lawn signs you can buy,” she said. “There’s only so many postcards you can send before people are sick of seeing them.”
The challengers recognize that even a large bank account has its limits and say they’re using the money to aid, not replace, old-fashioned politicking.
Goyal said he’s run a strong ground game that’s included knocking on more than 4,500 doors. Voters recognize him much more frequently now, he said, which he attributes to his advertisements.
“It’s a one-two punch,” he said.
Haney has attended small house parties — 15 so far — where voters have ample time to pose questions and learn about her candidacy. Those conversations, she said, can ripple outward as attendees talk to friends, relatives and neighbors.
“To me, that one-on-one thing is the most crucial investment,” Haney said. “And that doesn’t cost me a dime.”
Political fundraising can be a double-edged sword: High totals demonstrate a candidate’s strength, but too much money can make voters suspicious, said Vince Illuzzi, a former state senator in Essex County who now serves as the state’s attorney there.
Elected to the state Senate in 1980 at age 27, Illuzzi was reelected 16 times before staging an unsuccessful bid for state auditor. The $8,000 he spent in his first campaign — about $32,000 when adjusted for inflation — was on par with his competitors, he said. It was also necessary, he reasoned, given that his district back then spanned multiple counties and required him to advertise in larger newspapers.
Candidates who raise significantly more money than their competitors can face political backlash, he said. “That kind of thing can hurt as much as it helps.”
Indeed, past experience shows that high spending doesn’t always translate to winning the most votes. In his 2000 Senate run, Vallee, a Republican running in heavily Democratic Chittenden County, placed eighth out of 15 candidates. At the time, the top six vote-getters won seats.
More recently, former TV reporter Stewart Ledbetter spent roughly $60,000 on his 2024 Senate primary bid, only to place fourth in the same Chittenden district Goyal and Haney are hoping to represent. The two challengers met individually with Ledbetter to discuss the difficulty of breaking into the Senate.
If either of the two newcomers and the other well-funded candidates are victorious, it could bolster the idea that tens of thousands of dollars has simply become the price of admission in a Vermont Senate race. A poor showing at the ballot box, meanwhile, could reinforce the idea that money has its limits in Vermont politics.
Sen. Ann Cummings (D-Washington), who has represented her district since 1997, worries about these high-spending campaigns.
Cummings paid for her first race using a $2,000 donation from a local union, she said, back when a viable campaign could consist of a few advertisements in the newspaper and a steady diet of appearances at strawberry socials and church barbecues.
Now seeking reelection in a crowded primary field, Cummings acknowledged that even the most basic campaign costs far more these days. But she said the latest fundraising totals are threatening to push Vermont’s legislature into new territory.
“If the word is out that to get elected you’ve got to raise $100,000, that’s more than most people make,” Cummings said. “I worry the average Vermonter will be discouraged from stepping up.” ➆
The original print version of this article was headlined “‘Pay to Play’ | One candidate for the Vermont Senate has raised a record $138,000 to fund his primary bid. Is that the new cost of local representation?”
This article appears in July 29 • 2026.
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
