The RGA outfit, called A Stronger Vermont, has spent more than $580,000 in the past two weeks backing Lt. Gov. Phil Scott’s campaign, bringing its total this election cycle to nearly $2.4 million. The DGA super PAC, called Our Vermont, has spent just $145,000 in that period, bringing its campaign total to $814,000.
But those top-line numbers only tell half the story. While the DGA has been spending less on its own super PAC, it has been steering large sums of money to one associated with Planned Parenthood.
In the past eight days, the Planned Parenthood Action Fund super PAC has spent nearly $347,000 slamming Scott as favoring restrictions on abortion rights — a charge the Republican contests. According to disclosures filed with the Secretary of State’s Office, only $50,000 of that money has come from entities associated with Planned Parenthood. Far more has come from partisan interests.
State records show that the DGA has has dumped $350,000 into the Planned Parenthood super PAC in the past 10 days. Shelburne mega-donor Lisa Steele has also contributed $10,000, as have Burton Snowboards founders Jake and Donna Carpenter of Stowe.
“These ads are funded by a variety of voices that support our mission, including the DGA,” says Planned Parenthood Action Fund campaign manager Nick Charyk, who previously ran Matt Dunne’s Democratic gubernatorial primary bid.
Charyk disputes the notion that his group is serving as a front for DGA dollars, saying, “We’ve been around for 100 years now and that is not the intent of these ads.” His organization is allowed to coordinate with other super PACs, such as Our Vermont, and it can accept donations from the DGA. But it is barred from discussing strategy with the main branch of the DGA, because that organization coordinates directly with the Minter campaign.
Why would the DGA direct its money to another organization’s super PAC — not its own? Neither Charyk nor DGA spokesman Jared Leopold would directly answer the question, but one possibility is that Planned Parenthood carries with it a certain amount of institutional credibility — particularly among the women and independents both Minter and Scott are courting.
A Vermont Public Radio poll conducted early this month found that 17 percent of women are undecided in the gubernatorial race, compared to 10 percent of men. Twenty-four percent of independents haven’t made up their minds, compared to 13 percent of Democratic-leaning voters and 7 percent of Republican leaners.
A more recent WCAX-TV poll found that only 8 percent of women hadn’t made up their minds — and 10 percent of independents.
“The DGA frequently supports different groups who are working to elect Democratic candidates for governor,” Leopold says. “In Vermont this year, the DGA has supported both Our Vermont and the Planned Parenthood Action Fund.”
While the DGA has been financing Planned Parenthood’s super PAC, EMILY’s List has been financing the DGA’s super PAC. Recent disclosures show that two entities associated with EMILY’s List — Women Vote! and American Women — have contributed a combined $285,000 to Our Vermont in the past week. EMILY’s List, which supports Democratic, pro-choice women running for office, endorsed Minter in February.
Minter has also benefited from a mail and online advertising campaign sponsored by another super PAC, called the Vermont Conservation Voters Action Fund. That group has spent $145,000 backing the Democratic candidate within the past two weeks.
VCV Action Fund is primarily funded by the environmental group League of Conservation Voters, which donated $150,000 to the super PAC early this month. Other top donors include Charlotte renewable energy developer David Blittersdorf ($25,000), Diana Bingham ($16,000), Steele ($13,000), Arthur Berndt ($5,000), Cathleen Miller ($5,000) and Crea Lintilhac ($1,000).
Scott has also drawn support from one other super PAC, run by the Republican State Leadership Committee. That group, which typically supports legislative and lieutenant gubernatorial candidates, spent more than $12,000 on mail mentioning Scott.
Adding up all the outside spending, pro-Minter super PACs have actually outspent pro-Scott groups in the past two weeks. Those backing the Democrat have spent $637,000 in that period, while those supporting the Republican have spent $593,000.
Corrected at 2:56 p.m.: An earlier version of this story misstated the amount of money the Democratic Governors Association has contributed to the Planned Parenthood Action Fund super PAC. It is $350,000.
Related Stories
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
David Blittersdorf also donated to the Planned Parenthood Vermont PAC, I checked to confirm. It’s pretty easy to see what the agenda is. What I don’t see in this article is whether what the ads are saying is true. It is my impression they are false, that what is being claimed in the ads it is not accurate. How about some ground truthing of the allegations? Is it a smear campaign? We see ads run by the renewable industrialists that are patently false, but apparently anybody can say anything they want as long as they pay for it. Planned Parenthood is a wonderful organization. I am so sorry to see them being used this way.
It is also my opinion the claims are false. This should be telling to the ones who cry about big money in elections. To blatantly lie about Scott’s record like Minter and Blittersdorf are doing should disgust everyone
I am deeply dismayed by the sudden attempt by Planned Parenthood of Vermont to portray Phil Scott as someone who would attack a woman’s right to have an abortion. The announcer, Vicki Hart of Burlington, then attempts to vilify him by calling him just a typical Republican. This is politics of the lowest order.
For the record, we typical Republicans in the Vermont State Senate have voted to support the principles of Roe v. Wade in a resolution that has been offered at the commencement of each biennium. Phil Scott also voted for that resolution when he was a state senator. Sue Minter knows that. Sue, I know you cannot control the Planned Parenthood PAC, but allowing this ad to continue running without challenging it places an obstacle in front of any claim to be able to work across the aisle. I respectfully ask that you publicly disavow that ad.
Joe Benning, this is the fifth time in the last two days you’ve posted the exact same comment in response to Seven Days stories. (You’ve also posted it in other websites.)
That’s, quite simply, spamming.
Which is pretty much what we’ve come to expect from you and other Vermont Republicans.
You continue to mouth the exact same words over and over again… as if they are some kind of talisman that magically protects Phil Scott from the reality of his own record.
Phil Scott may not favor getting rid of Roe v. Wade, but he has a record of supporting greater restrictions on a woman’s right to choose. He has a record of endorsing Presidential candidates who want to restrict abortion rights (even in cases of rape and incest) and overturn Roe. He is recommended by anti-choice advocates.
Repeating over and over again that he is “pro-choice” doesn’t and can’t change those facts. No matter how many times you cut and paste the exact same comment.
Typical Republican.
Terjeanderson: typical partisan hack.
Well, it isn’t surprising that knowyourassumptions can’t refute the facts – doesn’t even try – so once more resorts to personal attacks and name-calling (while hiding behind an anonymous user name). Talk about hackery.
Do you deny that Phil Scott has supported parental notification legislation?
Do you deny that he has proposed outlawing the rare late term abortion procedure?
Do you deny that he wants to prohibit any public funds from paying for the procedure for poor women?
Are you claiming that Vermont Right to Life didn’t “recommend” him for Governor?
Are you pretending that he didn’t endorse Marco Rubio for President – the candidate who wants to outlaw abortion even for women who became pregnant due to rape or incest, and who pledged to nominate Supreme Court justices who would overturn Roe?
You really claim that pointing out those documented facts somehow makes someone a “hack”?
Maybe someday you’ll stop hiding behind an anonymous handle and actually engage in real debate about issues instead of trollishly hurling personal insults and name-calling. But until you do that, your charges of me being a “hack” amount to nothing more than projection.
Typical Republican.
You are so steeped in your partisan hackery that you call me a “typical Republican.” Your partisan hackery makes you blind to nuance. It closes your mind to other possibilities. In fact I am a Dem. I voted for Obama twice and will vote for Clinton. I voted for Dean every time. But like many Dems in Vermont I have seen Shumlin and his partisan enablers in the Legislature ruin Vermont. I am certainly not going to vote for another term for Shumlin just because the candidate has a D next to her name. Good luck with your party-first political hackery thing.
The title of this article could not be more correct as Planned Parenthood is spending an awful lot of money coming from the Democrats against the pro-choice candidate, Phil Scott. Are you confused yet?
Since Scott is a Republican and Planned Parenthood has let the democrats use them to distort Phil Scott’s pro-choice position. Oh my goodness, he once said that as the father of two minor daughters he would want to know if one of them was contemplating an abortion. That is the point of a parental notification law to just let parent’s know so they have the opportunity to protect their minor daughters from sexual predators if need be.
This is not about restricting a woman’s right to choose but protecting minor girls from a form of sexual abuse but then I guess the Democrats and Planned Parenthood do not care about that.
In a hypothetical political race, if Pope Francis were a Republican and Kim Jong-Un were a Democrat, Terje Anderson and his cohorts would still go around relentlessly perpetuating Kim Jong-Un’s propaganda, no matter how deceitful or unscrupulous it was. They are that committed to partisanship and groupthink.
Well done Paul – truly professional journalism and a heroic task to pull all that information together so that we with far fewer resources can be properly informed.
The subterfuge used by these groups and people to clandestinely fund a candidate with blatantly untruthful ads. using Planned Parenthood to smear a candidate is truly dismaying and a sad commentary on what politics in Vermont has become.
As lifelong Democrats we are so disgusted by this sort of behavior that we will be voting for Phil Scott.
New video! Here’s some truth for you!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PAYtiQkM_x…
@WalterCronkite…. LOL. Funny, Republicans would never nominate someone like Pope Francis, a radical who speaks up for the oppressed, opposes corporate greed, stands up for the environment, and is focused on social justice instead of culture war issues. But given the Republican willingness to nominate bellicose wannabe strongman Donald Trump (who praises Putin), it seems that King Jung-Un would find a more welcoming home in the GOP.
@knowyourassumptions. You can claim to be a Democrat. But since you’re hiding behind a fake name, there’s no way to confirm that. You could just as well be sitting at Republican headquarters spewing your personal attacks. (As the old cartoon reminds us “On the Internet, nobody knows you’re a dog” ) But whether you’re voting for Clinton or not, your long posting history of vitriolic attacks against the Democratic Party and Democratic candidates here certainly calls into question whatever self-professed status you have as a Democrat.
But the real point is that for all the Republicans and Scott backers here rising up and loudly accusing Planned Parenthood (and me) of lying or misrepresenting Scott’s record, not a single one of you have seriously disputed the details that have been laid out.
It isn’t a “lie” that Scott has a history of supporting additional restrictions on abortion rights (parental notification, late term ban, no public funds). It isn’t a “smear” that an anti-abortion group has named him as their preferred candidate in the election. It isn’t “false” that he has a history of endorsing virulently anti-choice candidates for President.
It understand that it makes you squirm when holes get poked in Scott’s oh so carefully crafted political image of being “pro-choice” by pointing out that his record is not quite so unequivocal.
But maybe instead of name-calling and insults, you could address those issues instead.
Scott is pro-choice. I am a Democrat. You are a left-wing Democratic party attack dog. Good day.
I am disgusted at the low level of political propaganda being flung around VT this election year. The mud sticks to both Democrats and Republicans. This name-calling and divisiveness prevents sensible sensitive discourse, which is necessary for effective legislation. The hypocrisy of both parties around the Choice/Life issue is perhaps the worst example of partisan politics, because this issue is often excruciating for families. As a parent of a child who was born with Down Syndrome, I have seen the effects of this hypocrisy first hand. I have been ostracized by “liberals” in my child’s school district who viewed my choice to give birth to a child with disabilities as somehow irresponsible because my “choice” steals resources from their “perfect” children and adds to their school-tax burden. And while conservative may support my child’s “right to life” they certainly don’t make that choice easy for families! These same “conservatives” slash funding for special education, healthcare and community support for people with disabilities at every opportunity. Both sides need to see that their disingenuous polarizing attitudes harm real people and fragment our communities. If you support “Choice” that means also supporting a family’s decision to raise a child with disabilities, not just their right to choose termination. If you support “Life” you should also support measures which reduce the need for abortion: access to contraception, adequate support for indigent families, and support for people with disabilities. I give both major parties a D- when it comes to their mud slinging around this excruciating issue. Shame on the both of them.
A note about my post: Even though I’m not thrilled with the Democratic leadership in Montpelier, I’ll be voting for Sue Minter because my child suffered most under Republican Gov. Jim Douglas, whose budgets were devastating to many vulnerable Vermonters. Sue is said to be a good listener, perhaps she will listen to parents like me and start holding schools and agencies accountable.