Vermonters First, a new conservative-oriented “super PAC,” will back two down-ticket Republicans in a two-week burst of advertising slated to hit the airwaves Monday.
The group plans to run two 15-second commercials spotlighting Republican state auditor candidate Vince Illuzzi and Republican state treasurer candidate Wendy Wilton.
“Unfortunately, both through the media and elected officials, we’re a lot of the time only hearing one perspective,” said Tayt Brooks, the GOP operative who founded the group. “I certainly think it’s important to have two sides of the issues debated and bring some balance back to the state.”
The Vermont Press Bureau on Thursday first reported the group’s filing and initial ad buy, which the news organization pegged at $70,000-plus. Seven Days viewed copies of the commercials filed with WCAX-TV Friday afternoon.
Video of the ads after the jump.
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
Troubling news that candidates can’t find support from within the state but accept money from unknown sources. Citizens United will be the downfall of our democracy…
You’re the worst character ever Towelie.
There’s no outrageous accusation here, merely run-of-the-mill political innuendo. And I think Wilton’s been pretty consistent about saying the state, not Pearce, earned the D. Wilton is also right that the job of a state treasurer is not to advocate for or against the single-payer plan, as Pearce has done. Her job is to make the numbers add up. Why is Paul making this such an issue when the Treasurer doesn’t set policy?
Speaking of political gain: if the banks’ watch list was meant to be for internal reference only and even the communities affected don’t know about it, then it was poor form for Pearce to use that knowledge against her opponent. She should have maintained discretion and kept her board work separate from her campaign.
In my opinion, Wendy’s elevetor doesn’t quite make it to the top floor. She’ll fit right in with the sleazier members of state politics.
With all the badgering Mr. Heintz went through, a simple question would have answered it all…”did anything CHANGE in between board votes that would warrant the watch list?”
If the unfunded pension liability was the same at the June vote as it was the previous vote and everything else was the same I think it’s pretty obvious. If it changed greatly then the board has reason.
The rest is nothing more then twisting statements and words to try and catch Mrs. Wilton in some kind of “gotcha” moment. That kind of reporting should be left to the BFP and the Enquirer