On March 9, U.S. District Court Judge William Sessions upheld restrictions on Vermont candidates who qualify for public funding, but acknowledged that many details of the restrictions are still murky. Judge Sessions says that if a Vermont state court proceeds with punishment for Progressive Party candidate Dean Corren, that Corren is free to re-file his case in federal court.
Dean Corren was the Progressive Party nominee for Lieutenant Governor in 2014. The state fined Corren $20,000, and ordered him to repay $52,000 of public financing, because the Democratic Party (which supported Corren) had sent out a mass e-mail inviting Democrats to come to a rally at which Corren, along with other candidates who weren’t Progressives, were speaking. The state believed that the e-mail was an illegal campaign contribution.
Judge Sessions wrote, “Testimony before the Court revealed confusion on all sides as to what the law allows, and whether political parties in particular can play a role in publicly-financed campaigns.” He noted that a state court is considering whether the fine against Corren is proper or not. Judge Sessions wrote that in his opinion, the law “allows candidates to communicate freely with, and receive meaningful assistance from, their supporters. Political parties in particular may provide public-financed candidates with office space, voter lists, training sessions, and other forms of traditional party support without violating any statutory restrictions.” Therefore, if the state court upholds Corren’s fine, it is very likely a new federal case will countermand the fine.
Judge Sessions upheld the part of the public financing law that says publicly-financed candidates may not announce their candidacy before February 15 of an election year. That issue was in the lawsuit because a 2016 Progressive candidate, David Zuckerman, had intervened in the case to raise that point. As a result of that outcome, Zuckerman will not try to qualify for public funding. The case is Corren v Sorrell, 2:15cv-58.
You keep overlooking the coordination.
The Corren campaign had sought the help of Dottie Deans, head honcho of the Vermont Democrat Party to assist his personal campaign. They came up with the scheme of Dottie Deans sending an e-mail to 17,500 persons on the Dean’s email list, where she would extol Corren’s virtues. This was written by the Corren campaign, with the suggestion that Dean might edit it for style. The party lawyer told her that the e-mail was an in-kind contribution.
It was only then, that they hatched the idea to add a couple of lines inviting Democrats to a rally for several Democrats including Corren, and also reminding Democrats that helping with GOTV would help Corren.
Imagine there was a TV Ad for Corren. The Democratic Party added an introduction, “Hi I’m Dottie Deans, I’m supporting Dean Correns for Lieutenant Governor, here’s why:” [camera is on Dean, she walks over to stand next to Corren, they smile at each other. Fade introduction into the Corren Ad. After the 1-minute ad, fade back to Dean and Corren. Dottie speaks: “Here’s some ways to support Dean Corren, “Volunteer with his campaign,” (splash address of his website and physical address), “come to a rally with Dean and count them five other Democratic candidates” (Curren’s picture is on the screen for 5 seconds, and the other five for 1/2 second each, with numbers 1 through 5), and help out with “Democratic Party Get Out The Vote.” (shows picture of Curren with sign reading “Vote Democratic”). The disclosure says that it is paid for by the Vermont Democratic Party.
It is total pretense that the ad was not a campaign ad for Curren.
I wish I were able to link to the decision.
I have read the opinion of Judge Sessions, and also of the state courts. I might have been sympathetic if what Dottie Dean did do was to simply invite voters to attend a campaign rally for a number of Democratic candidates, including Curren.
The federal opinion quotes portions of the Dottie Dean e-mail, but omits most of the substance, so as to focus on a couple of lines in the e-mail.
In any case, there are two possible outcomes, both positive:
(1) No serious candidate will use public funding.
(2) The federal court will carve such loopholes as to make Vermont voters want to eliminate public funding.