Updated at 11:56 a.m.
At a Statehouse press conference in May, Democratic gubernatorial candidate Matt Dunne spoke out against those who finance their own political campaigns.
“I will personally be adhering to the contribution limits set for an individual Vermonter and will not be self-funding the campaign above those limits,” Dunne said. “And we’re calling on all the other candidates in the race to do the same and abstain from self-funding their campaigns.”
Dunne kept his pledge — for a time. He donated $2,000 to his campaign in March and another $2,000 in July. That’s within the $4,000 limit to which non-candidates must adhere in Vermont. (Candidates themselves are legally allowed to invest as much as they want in their own campaigns.)
But this week, as Dunne’s campaign appeared to crater, he broke his promise. According to filings with the Secretary of State’s Office, the former Google manager made a $50,000 personal loan to his campaign on Tuesday. He made another $45,000 loan on Wednesday.
Remarkably, Dunne continued to jab Democratic rival Peter Galbraith on Thursday for self-financing his campaign.
“Including the money that you put into your own campaign, Peter?” Dunne asked Galbraith during a heated debate on Vermont Public Radio. “How much?”
As of Friday morning, Dunne’s pledge to refrain from self-financing remained on his campaign website.
In a statement to Seven Days, Dunne spokeswoman Jessica Bassett did not address the apparent flip-flop.
“Matt made a bridge loan to the campaign that we expect will be repaid in full based on outstanding commitments and ongoing fundraising,” she said.
Campaigns are free to pay back loans to their candidates, even after a race is over, but they rarely do in Vermont. Typically, candidates will eventually forgive the loan, at which point it is considered a direct donation.
Dunne isn’t the only wealthy tech exec infusing his candidacy with last-minute cash. As Seven Days reported Thursday, Silicon Valley venture capitalist Reid Hoffman bought $220,000 worth of ads backing Dunne’s campaign late this week. Because Hoffman spent the money himself and did not directly contribute to Dunne’s campaign, it is legal for him to spend unlimited sums on such ads.
Two other candidates have also benefited from last-minute, outsider spending. A super PAC largely financed by Washington, D.C.-based EMILY’s List spent at least $120,000 on pro-Minter advertising this week. Another super PAC, funded by two former colleagues of Republican gubernatorial candidate Bruce Lisman, spent at least $27,000 supporting his candidacy.
After learning of Dunne’s self-funding Friday morning, Galbraith reacted with colorful language.
“Can you believe that fucker?” the former ambassador said, emphasizing that he was on the record. “Matt Dunne really doesn’t have the integrity to be the governor of Vermont. Imagine: Having self-funded in violation of his own campaign pledge, he then attacks me for having self-funded.”
Galbraith added, “Matt Dunne — he just has a hard time with the truth.”
Minter’s campaign responded in a more measured manner.
“This is another instance of Matt Dunne saying one thing while doing another on key progressive issues like gun safety, the environment and campaign finance reform,” her campaign manager, Molly Ritner, said in a statement. “Matt claims to be the progressive choice but, in my experience, progressives stand by their word even during a tough fight. Sue Minter is the candidate Vermonters can trust.”
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
Finally, I did not mean to go on the record with a colorful expression to describe Matt Dunne. I meant only to put my comments about Dunne’s integrity on the record. However, the fault was entirely mine and not the reporter’s. Paul Heintz recorded my words accurately. I apologized the same day to the Dunne campaign for that one word of my remarks.
Here is what is wrong with what Matt Dunne did. He pledged on his website not to self fund his campaign. He then self-funded his campaign to the tune of $95,000. He did not disclose that he had broken his pledge which remained on his web site. Two days after loaning his own campaign $95,000, he criticized me in the VPR debate for loaning my own campaign $200,000. Basically, he hoped that no one notice his own self funding done days before the election and recorded only in an obscure filing with the Secretary of State. Once caught out, he tried to cover his tracks by pretending that a loan was different than self funding.
I understand why a candidate might self fund. i entered the race late and had a choice between spending time on the phone raising money or loaning myself money and using my time to meet voters. I have no problem with Matt Dunne breaking his pledge. This can happen. But, I do have a problem with a candidate breaking his pledge, deliberately misleading voters into thinking he was honoring it, and then criticizing another candidate for doing the very thing he himself had just done.
This conduct raises questions about Matt Dunne’s integrity. And it makes me doubt that he is being honest when he claims he knew nothing about the $220,000 in ads that billionaire Reid Hoffman, whom Dunne describes as a close friend, just bought in a so-called independent expenditure on Dunne’s behalf.
Reckless Disregard for Responsibility !
By my count, we’re at:
Dunne-$1,100.000.00
Ericson- less than $500.00
Galbraith-$350,000.00
Lisman-$2,200,000.00
Minter-$1,230,000.00
Paige-$6,750.00
Scott-$650,000.00
Total over $5,000,000.00 in the Gubernatorial Race – INBELIEVEABLE!
Vermonters have been inundated with a handful of advertisements incessantly replayed over and over until the viewing audience is begging to see one of those “Flo, the Progressive Lady.”
Over half of all the cash (excluding self-financing monies) has come from out-of-state interest and supporters looking to buy influence in one form or another.
Sadly, the Democratics have invested in three “peas-in-a-pod” all having basically the same positions on the major issues and all of the candidates “wild-eyed” with dreams and schemes that that the taxpayers have neither the interest or cash to support. In the final stretch, the “kind-natured” liberals have revealed their seamy underbellies of pettiness and hubris – all for the privilege of being slaughtered in the general election by Phil Scott.
On the Republican side, Lisman has decided that self-immolation is the way to win an election. Pouring over $2,000,000.00 of his own cash and now a $200,000.00 from some Wall Street buddies, Lisman has driven his negative poll numbers downward at twice the rate that his name recognition numbers have risen. Bruce could have achieved a better result by piling stacks of currency in front of the State House, pouring gasoline on them and striking a match!
Here is the part that makes no sense at all – How do the candidates justify spending a million bucks (or more) to get a two-year gig that pays $150,000.00. More importantly, how can the taxpayers trust these folks with their hard earned tax dollars when they have exhibited such reckless disregard for the contribution dollars of their supporters?
H. Brooke Paige
Democratic Candidate for Governor and Attorney General.
http://www.brookepaige.us
Amy Robb, while Dunne may be conniving, he is not stupid: a bridge loan and a campaign contribution from the candidate, as Paul Heintz explains in his piece are semantically the same, especially the week before a tight primary:
If Dunne looses the primary, the cash will stop coming in and he will have nothing to pay himself back with so he won’t. If Dunne wins the primary and is in a tough race for governor do you think he will be willing to pay back a 95k loan (that he can afford) and that would cripple him against his competitor? You do not run for governor twice, as Dunne has, if you do not want it really badly.
However, even if he could somehow do what virtually no other candidate for higher office does and he could repay himself, you are still missing the point: Dunne tried to outsmart the spirit of his own campaign promise. No one made him make this promise. Dunne choose it all on his own and then abandoned it the week before the primary when it became too difficult. That is why so many people find Dunne’s actions worrying.
Additionally, Dunne seems to think he can outsmart voters, which is always a vulgar quality in a candidate and reminds many people of our current Governor.
In short, no, Paul Heintz, is not misleading voters. Matt Dunne is.
I voted absentee for Dunne before his kinda-sorta-anti-wind switch, and I now regret it. He’s taken great positions on the economy, social justice, and healthcare, and given good implementation plans; but it seems more and more like, like Shumlin, he doesn’t have the integrity to stand by his positions when it counts.
Meanwhile, Galbraith moved the Overton window well but has acknowledged it’s now a two-person race—and having made millions in a revolving-door oil deal, he has his own character problems. Minter has a good platform and a track record of following through on her executive responsibilities: she should be our next governor.