Christine Hallquist’s victory in the August 14 Democratic gubernatorial primary brought a flood of national — and global — attention to her candidacy. That night, she became the first openly transgender candidate to win a major party’s nomination for governor. The resultant publicity is making the money flow as never before.
September 1 marked another campaign finance reporting deadline for Vermont candidates. Between August 15 and September 1, a little more than two weeks’ time, Hallquist raised more than $71,000. That’s nearly half her total for the preceding five months of campaigning. And a Friday campaign press release boasted that Hallquist had received at least one donation from every state in the union.
It was a welcome boost, since she exited the primary with essentially no money in the bank. Even so, she spent almost as much in late August as she raised, and enters September with roughly $14,000 in cash on hand.
Her opponent, Gov. Phil Scott, continued to fundraise at a rather leisurely pace. His total for the second half of August was $41,000 — and he spent a bit more than that. He has about $50,000 in cash on hand, plus another $18,000 left over from his 2016 campaign.
Hallquist pulled in many more small donations than Scott, and that’s reflected in the total number of contributors to each campaign. In the second half of August, Hallquist received donations from 838 separate individuals. Scott’s total: 101.
The Democratic candidate received only a handful of large contributions. The Trans United Fund, a Washington, D.C.-based organization that promotes “the political power of trans and gender expansive communities,” gave Hallquist $4,080. Berlin residents John and Kristen Friedrich donated a total of $8,000. Lorene and Ellen Vaut of South Burlington gave a total of $7,000 between the two of them. No other donor gave more than $1,000.
Scott’s biggest donations in the late-August reporting period included $4,080 from Barre granite company Buttura & Sons; $4,000 from drug maker Pfizer; $4,000 from Glen Wright, a retired financial services executive; $2,500 from the Entertainment Software Association, an industry lobbying outfit; $2,000 from the Coca-Cola Bottling Company of Northern New England; and $2,000 from Sunovion, a Massachusetts pharmaceutical firm.
In the other hotly contested campaign for statewide office, House Minority Leader Don Turner (R-Milton) continues to hold a financial edge on incumbent Lt. Gov. David Zuckerman. Turner’s September 1 report shows $23,000 in donations since August 15, while Zuckerman received $17,000. As usual, Turner’s donors were fewer but had more cash to give.
During the 16 days leading to September 1, a total of 184 individuals donated to Zuckerman; that brings his campaign total to 768. For Turner, those numbers are 92 and 263, respectively.
Turner has the edge in cash on hand, but not overwhelmingly so. He enters September with $95,000 in the bank; Zuckerman has $39,000, plus another $12,000 in surplus from his 2016 campaign.
The Republicans’ other candidates for statewide office are starting from scratch. Rick Morton (treasurer), Rick Kenyon (auditor) and Rep. Janssen Willhoit (R-St. Johnsbury)(attorney general) were chosen at a Wednesday night meeting of the party’s state committee, and did not submit campaign finance reports. H. Brooke Paige, the Republican candidate for secretary of state, has a long history of running low-budget or no-budget campaigns; he also did not file a September 1 report.
Among the incumbents, only Attorney General T.J. Donovan has put any noticeable effort into fundraising; his September 1 filing reported $23,000 in new donations and a campaign total of $101,000. (Donovan also has $128,000 in surplus from his 2016 campaign.) By contrast, Treasurer Beth Pearce has raised a total of $11,000 for her entire campaign and Secretary of State Jim Condos has raised a total of $3,000. Auditor Doug Hoffer didn’t submit a report for September 1, which may mean he didn’t raise or spend much at all. He’d only raised $2,400 for his entire campaign as of mid-August.
Related Stories
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
According to OpenSecrets.org, our Vermont Senators Bernie Sanders and Pat Leahy ranked first and fourth respectively among Senate Democrats taking money from Pfizer. Sanders hauled in $14,837 and Leahy netted a cool $10,000.
So why is Scott accepting donations from big pharma? The big corporations have no business in donating dark money for state elections unless he’s hiding something… As for the national elections, it’s normal to get donations from everywhere. But was Bernie only accepting small donations from people when he was running for president?
Bruce – You said that Benie received $14,837 from Pfizer. That seemed odd to me.
The site you referenced says that “The money came from the organizations’ PACs; their individual members, employees or owners; and those individuals’ immediate families.” Therefore, it is misleading to say that the money came from Pfizer.
I looked on the FEC site and could find no contributions to Bernie from Pfizer.
While I suspect that I will spend more than the $500 minimum before filing is required – before the next deadline (September 15) however my campaign is about issues not popularity !
I’m not big on asking folks for money, the election is basically an extended job interview and my job is to convince the voters that Jim Condos isn’t doing the job that he’s being paid to do AND that I will not only get the job done, I will significantly improve both the Election Division and Archives as well as continuing the IT integration that the SOS office has implemented in recent years ! H. Brooke Paige
Doug, I think you are correct that it is misleading to imply it came from Pfizer, at least directly, because of the language you cited, which I should have cited as well. Yet, based on my experience in politics, there are many ways for a corporation to contribute to a Member of Congress through “surrogates” such as individuals, members, immediate families, etc. And, it is hard to tell the details of how Bernie supposedly received Pfizer-related money. The whole issue generally needs a wider discussion.
Here is the link to the Open Secrets listing I had found: https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/recips.ph…
“So why is Scott accepting donations from big pharma? The big corporations have no business in donating dark money for state elections unless he’s hiding something… As for the national elections, it’s normal to get donations from everywhere.”
So, Mr. Grape, I don’t hear you complaining that the Democratic candidate for Governor is raising thousands of dollars out of state.
Why should ANY candidate for state office (Governor, Lt. Governor, etc.) or representing that state in Congress, be allowed to accept ANY money from outside the state?
Bruce – Thanks for your follow-up. The whole thing seemed odd because there is no reason for Pfizer (or any other Big Pharma player) to contribute directly or otherwise to Bernie who has worked for decades on behalf of consumers who get screwed by these guys. While I agree that a large corporation could work through board members, family & friends of high ranking company officials and others to direct money to elected officials, this one sems most unlikely.
Knowyourass, why? ’cause it’s legal.
Don’t like the laws? Mebbe you could actually drop the Batman mask and actually do something for a change.
Why are people from out of state sending money to David Hallquist?? These people don’t live in Vermont, they don’t care about Vermont. Why the money?? Is he going to be Governor to their states too? Are they going to come up here and Vote??? Do they pay taxes here? Do they work or live here??? Have they ever been to Vermont? Why the money???? Just because David is transgender?? Is that a reason to send money to him? Can anyone answer all these questions??? there’s 11 questions..
Yes, its legal, and so are the donations to the Scott campaign that *Batman-mask* GI Grape was complaining about, and to whom I was responding. Mebbe you could pay closer attention to context. Thanks.