Dear Neighbor,

Thanks for visiting my 2008 campaign web site, and for your continuing interest in the political process in Londonderry, Vermont.

I was pleased and proud to carry the Democratic nomination for the Vermont House of Representatives in 2008. It was an enjoyable and enlightening experience that gives me great respect for those who have given so much to the governance of our state, yet the cost of a successful campaign is well beyond my means and I have decided not to run again.

Vermont politics is local. That’s the way our forefathers envisioned the process. To their great credit they crafted small districts, expecting a candidate to reach out to every neighbor, and to represent the real people who live in this great state. They would be shocked and saddened by the influence of money in present day Vermont politics, and especially disappointed to learn how much power is now held by wealthy land owners living in states like New York and Massachusetts.  

The 2008 campaign was tough. I was up against a 10 year incumbent who outspent me three to one, and he probably set a new Vermont record for spending in the process. I was truly shocked by the money he raised, and disappointed at the power those dollars held in a local election process that should be about direct interaction and not mass media.

When I was first approached to run for the House seat I researched the cost of a campaign in a small district with just 4,000 residents and an average of about 2,000 – 2,500 votes cast in each election. I learned that both the Majority Leader and Minority Leader of the Vermont House put the cost of a single seat campaign at between $3,000 and $5,000, which certainly seemed manageable, especially if I sought small donations from good neighbors. I drafted a budget at the top end, but I really wanted to keep spending at about $1 per resident, which should be enough to run a solid campaign based on hard work and handshakes - - - the old fashioned Vermont style of campaigning.

Unfortunately, my opponent took a different route. He went straight to out-of-state vacation homeowners with promises to shift the tax structure and cut their property taxes. They responded by flooding him with big donations of as much as $2,000, and overwhelmed the local campaign with their affluence.

When all was said and done, my opponent raised roughly $30,000 and spent about $15,000 of it right here in his home district. Much of the rest was showered on like-minded Republicans who would join his effort to shift the property tax burden away from second home owners.

The effect of all that money was immediate and dramatic. While I held the line on spending at $5,000, my opponent spent almost that much on newspaper ads spaced through the election cycle. He spent roughly the same on printing and direct mail, and then shoveled another $5,000 into things like yard signs, give-a-way hats, and outside consultant services. He wielded his vast campaign war chest like an old-time Chicago politician and sought influence by giving more than $1,000 of campaign funds to local charities in an effort to subtly buy votes. It was shocking, but effective, and sadly the success of his efforts has probably changed the face of small town Vermont campaigns forever.

Now, when I read about Supreme Court decisions like Randell v. Sorrell (http://www.nvri.org/campaignspending/docs/supreme_court_syllabus_062606.pdf) and Citizens United (http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf ) I understand just how destructive money can be in politics, and how the earnest speech of one citizen can be suppressed by the free spending of another. We often think of campaign finance decisions by the United States Supreme Court as governing big national elections, but the real impact of money in politics is at the local level, and unfortunately the courts have been siding with big spenders.

My opponent was a good man and deservedly respected by our neighbors. But his approach to campaigning was the antithesis of the Vermont way. Sadly, the effect served him and the Republican Party well, and his replacement in the 2010 election is already showing signs that he will spend as lavishly.

I encourage you to watch this election carefully. The Republican candidate has inherited the old fundraising lists and will almost certainly reach out to those same second homeowners. Their interests in slashing education spending and shifting the tax burden to the shoulders of Vermonters will be well funded, but likewise well disguised. I urge you to be careful of that outside influence, and to stand firm on traditional Vermont values.