In their first Statehouse meeting since last month’s elections, House Democrats spent Saturday hearing from committee leaders about the issues they expect to arise when the legislature convenes in January.
They were on just the third of 13 committee reports when Rep. Mary Sullivan (D-Burlington), speaking for the House Natural Resources and Energy Committee, made her pitch for a carbon tax. She called the measure, intended to reduce fossil fuel consumption, one of the “most maligned” of the fall campaign.
In the Statehouse meeting room, none of the 40-some Democrats in attendance said a word, but one could almost hear what some were thinking: Did she say carbon tax? You mean the very same issue that Republicans successfully used in recent months to hound some Democrats and Progressives out of office?
Yes, she did. And unapologetically.
“I don’t want to let them get away with misrepresenting the tax,” Sullivan said afterward, referring to Republicans. “They never talk about what an economic development tool it is.”
“I don’t want to let them get away with misrepresenting the tax.” Rep. Mary Sullivan (D-Burlington)
Sullivan craves a debate over a proposal that Republicans spent boatloads of money criticizing in radio, television and print advertisements. Those ads, she argues, failed to mention that 90 percent of the money raised by the levy could go back to Vermonters in the form of direct rebates to consumers, a sales tax cut and credits for home-weatherization projects.
Maybe so. But by electing Republican Phil Scott governor, didn’t voters send Montpelier the message that they’re uninterested in new taxes and spending? Are Sullivan and her carbon-taxing compadres politically tone-deaf — or is their reading of the election results a reasonable one?
Either way, advancing such a proposal would immediately pick a fight with the governor-elect, who has said repeatedly that he would veto such a bill. It would also pit Democratic lawmakers against one another.
As Sullivan spoke, Rep. Sarah Buxton (D-Tunbridge) stood across the room, cringing. Buxton’s reelection bid is in the hands of a judge after she and Republican challenger David Ainsworth found themselves in a tie. She attributes her electoral tight spot in part to Republicans’ barrage of ads focused on the carbon tax.
Buxton says her position was mischaracterized: She opposes the tax, but Republicans disregarded that fact. Whether she ends up in or out of the legislature, the three-term lawmaker says she hopes legislators find other ways to reduce the output of carbon in Vermont. In her rural district, she says, the prospect of a carbon tax raises “very real concerns about higher costs of living and greater commuting costs.”
The intraparty disagreement suggests that soon-to-be House speaker Mitzi Johnson (D-South Hero), whom Democrats elected Saturday as their nominee to run the chamber, will have her hands full playing referee. Sullivan is no outlier. She was one of Johnson’s earliest, strongest supporters for the speaker’s job and is considered a potential chair of the Natural Resources and Energy Committee.
Asked afterward whether Democrats would really seek a carbon tax this year, Johnson said the proposal was “on the radar,” but she also indicated that Sullivan hadn’t quite followed the caucus’ agenda. The speaker-to-be said she had hoped that committee designees would outline broad problems their panels planned to tackle, not champion a specific solution this early in the process.
In the most delicate of terms, Johnson acknowledged that some members might see things differently.
“We have a very broad Democratic caucus,” she said. “There have been times in the past where a more senior voice or a louder voice gets their idea out front first. It’s really my priority to make sure committees don’t start out with, ‘Who’s got an idea?'”
Before they consider specific labor bills, for example, Johnson wants members to examine the challenges that face Vermonters who patch together several jobs to make a living. She’s asking them to look at whether the state can help make retirement, health coverage and other benefits portable for those with a variety of gigs.
Other committee designees apparently got Johnson’s memo. When it was her turn to speak, Rep. Maxine Grad (D-Moretown), who chairs the House Judiciary Committee, didn’t specify whether her panel would legalize marijuana or not. She said more vaguely that she expected to look “at the role of marijuana in our criminal justice system.”
Afterward, however, Grad was more specific. She hopes to consider a Washington, D.C., model, which she described as “super decrim.” In the nation’s capital, possession of up to two ounces of marijuana is legal, but sale and public consumption are not.
See how quickly debate over any issue comes back to a specific proposal? On every topic, the natural order of things for legislators, lobbyists, the media and the public will be to zero in on these questions: Is there a bill, and will it pass?
Try as she might to focus her members on tackling concepts, Johnson will eventually have to be the gatekeeper who decides whether there is a bill, whether it has merit and whether her caucus agrees. On Saturday, she got her first look at how hard that might be.
Bernie’s Batting Average
Once Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) lost his bid for the Democratic presidential nomination last summer, he shifted much of his attention to helping other candidates get elected — in Vermont and across the country.
Given the huge crowds he was drawing and sizable sums of money he could raise by writing an email and pushing “send,” it was plausible that the 74-year-old senator would be the difference-maker in many of those races.
So how did Sanders’ beneficiaries end up doing?
In Vermont, he backed more winners than losers, by a count of 17-7. Nationally, he had less success: 10 winners and 13 losers. His overall score: 27-20.
Some of his winners — especially in Vermont — were not exactly big risks. State Sens. Tim Ashe (D/P-Chittenden), Anthony Pollina (P/D-Washington) and Dick McCormack (D-Windsor) surely would have done fine with or without feeling the Bern.
But Sanders boosted other Vermont candidates who were less of a sure thing. Among them: lieutenant governor-elect David Zuckerman, senator-elect Chris Pearson and representative-elect Cindy Weed.
Nationally, he helped Pramila Jayapal, a Democrat in Washington State, become the first Indian American woman elected to the U.S. House. In New Hampshire, Sanders-backed Democrat Maggie Hassan defeated U.S Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) — but just barely.
Sanders’ faves also lost races that were seen as winnable.
Here in Vermont, Democratic gubernatorial candidate Sue Minter relished his endorsement, the statewide rallies that followed and the fundraising appeal he made on her behalf. But none of that was enough to put the first-time statewide candidate over the top against Republican Lt. Gov. Scott.
A handful of Vermont House candidates also failed, though nearly all of them were challenging incumbents. Two among the defeated were longtime Sanders supporters: Progressive/Democrat Mari Cordes of Lincoln and Progressive Robert Millar of Winooski.
Sanders’ personal visits on the campaign trail didn’t deliver victory for Zephyr Teachout, the former Vermonter who ran for an open U.S. House seat in upstate New York, for Russ Feingold in his bid to return to a U.S. Senate seat in Wisconsin, or for Katie McGinty, a first-time U.S. Senate candidate in Pennsylvania.
What should we make of the results?
“Our research into endorsements suggests that they tend to have less of an impact than you think,” says Middlebury College political science professor Matt Dickinson. That includes Sanders, as popular as he had become.
Endorsements have the most impact when they are unexpected and come during primary elections featuring candidates who are similar and in lower-level races in which voters tend to have less information to go on, the prof says.
Pearson, who was making the jump from the Vermont House to the Senate, says that last factor applied to his race, in which he was one of 11 candidates in the Democratic primary and one of eight candidates for six seats in the general election. “I do think it helped me stand out,” he says.
The $80,000 that Sanders’ fundraising appeal generated for Pearson helped, too, because he never had to spend time raising money himself.
But he came in last place — of six successful finishers — after fellow newcomer Debbie Ingram.
Mike McCarthy, an unsuccessful Democratic state House candidate in St. Albans, touted Sanders’ endorsement in his mailers. Ultimately, it did little to win over those not already inclined to vote for him, McCarthy says.
The same was true for Minter, whom Sanders endorsed late in the campaign, Dickinson says. Those college campus rallies might have energized a few unenthused students to vote, but not large numbers. “If you’re attending a rally on a college campus, you are probably going to vote,” he says.
The lesson, according to Dickinson, is that Sanders can be most effective helping to recruit and fund like-minded, down-ballot candidates who are challenging the status quo. The Sanders seal of approval is helpful, but financial and logistical support is even more so. “Money is crucial,” he says. “That money begets more money.”
Lobby Labels
Two Vermont lobbying firms are headed into the New Year with new names that signal new focus.
KSE Partners, one of the state’s most influential lobbying firms, announced Monday that it is now Leonine Public Affairs. The new name may not exactly roar off the tongue, but president of public relations Alex MacLean says it came out of a collaboration with the Burlington branding firm Tenth Crow Creative.
“We felt that Leonine, meaning lionlike, would better reflect who we are today — a bold, action-oriented firm,” says MacLean, a former campaign manager and deputy chief of staff to Gov. Peter Shumlin and a newly minted partner at the feline firm.
The rebranding is intended to signal that the outfit has branched out beyond government lobbying and now also specializes in public relations, advocacy campaigns and tax analysis for the telecommunications industry, according to MacLean.
Bill Lofy, a former chief of staff to Shumlin, has transformed his lobbying firm, Lofy Strategies, into a new company, called Kria Group. Kria means “to grow” in the Portuguese-based Creole spoken in Cape Verde.
Lofy and business partner Dan Chang are focusing on public relations and business development projects in Vermont and West Africa, an unusual combo that suits their specific backgrounds.
Both live in Vermont and were Peace Corps volunteers in West Africa — Lofy in Cape Verde, off the coast of Senegal; Chang in Gabon. (For the record, I was also a Peace Corps volunteer in Niger, West Africa, but that’s just a coincidence.)
Their new company is looking for projects “that invest in people and organizations that are doing good for the world, and we help them tell their stories and grow,” Kria’s website declares.
In Vermont, their signature project is the Botanical Center of Excellence, which is looking to extract cannabidiol from hemp for therapeutic uses. In West Africa, they are focused on making use of Cape Verde’s bananas, mangoes and strawberries to create the island nation’s first juice manufacturing facility. Lobbying and political consulting will play a smaller role in the endeavor, though the firm recently advised the Democratic Governors Association’s pro-Minter super PAC.
They might just have cornered the Vermont-West Africa market.
Disclosure: Tim Ashe is the domestic partner of Seven Days publisher and coeditor Paula Routly. Paul Heintz returns to Fair Game next week.
The original print version of this article was headlined “Caucus Conundrum”
Related Stories
This article appears in Dec 7-12, 2016.
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
Proud that my Rep, Mary Sullivan, isn’t willing to back down from embracing a smart solution because of election-season lies spread by Koch and company. In this era of fake news we need more honest analyses. 7D should take a real look at this proposal.
Rep. Sullivan is right. The climate crisis didn’t end on November 8, nor did the opportunity for Vermont to create jobs and grow our economy by transitioning to clean energy. Carbon pricing is used across the globe — and here in Vermont’s electric sector — and it works.
The commentators, pundits, and Vermont media at large have forgotten, or maybe never were aware to begin with, that the same polling done by WCAX that correctly projected the Scott victory also showed 49% of Vermonters responding favorably to “a Vermont carbon tax aimed at reducing global warming,” which is a pretty reductionist way of describing a plan that was really more comprehensive tax reform. Taking that poll at face value, those who respondents voting for Scott also favor a carbon pollution tax, so why has the opposite narrative all we hear? Rep. Sullivan is right. The policy was incredibly misrepresented, and it takes real courage to not fall in line with others who know the same and would instead of correcting that neglect to say anything as a matter of convenience.
If Governor-elect wants affordability, energy independence, and a 90% renewable Vermont by 2050, he should seriously keep an open mind on carbon pricing. This is no time to be divisive – a carbon pollution tax if designed well can lower the cost of living in Vermont, and retrieve some of the $1.6 billion dollars we send out of VT to buy fossil fuels. I just found this booklet, “Tax Reform that Agrees with Vermont”, that includes insight on how to price pollution, put together by The Vermont Fair Tax Coalition – in 1999. Time to get a move on, VT! Thank you, Rep. Mary Sullivan, for not backing down, and for doing exactly what you should in the face of a Trump administration.
The public relations and advocacy KSE Partners engaged in over the wind projects in Windham and Grafton was such a failure, it’s no wonder they changed their name. Dylan Zwicky, Alex MacLean and Todd Bailey were all over those towns, going door to door and of course working to buy the votes. If anything, voters were turned off by the efforts of KSE Partners and Iberdrola.
Thank you, Rep. Mary Sullivan, for staying strong in the face of misinformation. There are economic advantages to Vermont tackling the problem of carbon pollution, including growing more in-state jobs, growing the economy, and investing locally in efficiency and renewables.
I appreciate Rep. Sullivan standing firm on a carbon pollution policy that offers many benefits, despite what the onslaught of attack ads on the policy wanted you to believe. Rep. Sullivan rightly wants to refocus a legislative and public dialogue that is informed by an open and honest debate on the merits of the policy as a smart economic development tool. Taxing carbon pollution (something we must produce less of) while reducing taxes on our incomes and businesses (things we want more of) means we’re talking about a tax shift. And, let’s not forget, that a previous version of the policy included a 10% energy independence fund that would allow Vermonters to access financing to tighten up their homes, wasting less energy and money, among other opportunities. Let’s have that discussion.
Glad to see legislators standing strong on climate change. With Trump as president, we NEED to lead the way here in Vermont on climate and many other issues. It’s vital that we implement meaningful policies as soon as possible to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The carbon pollution tax, with the proper uses of that revenue, is an extremely effective way to do this. Thank you Rep. Mary Sullivan!
It is laughable that 650,000 people in Vermont are going to make a dent in global warming when there are literally billions of people in India and China, many adopting a Western standard of living and consumption. Last I checked, China has zero carbon tax.
And it is amazing that the people worrying about global warming rarely say a peep about worldwide population growth. We’ve gone from 1.6 billion in 1900 to pushing 8 billion now. How many mammals, birds, amphibians go extinct each year as humans take over more of the planet? Global warming is the least of our problems. Knowledgeable scientists say that assuming current warming projections are accurate, we are already too far along anyway (and still would have been, even if Hillary Clinton had been elected & tried to follow through on her policies).
Anyone who privately wants to drive a Prius; put solar panels on their roof, go for it. Eat vegetarian or better yet, vegan. Follow Bill McKibben’s original advice in his book, “Maybe One” (i.e., one child). Private choices can make a difference.
And certainly energy efficiency and home weatherization is a great thing. Vermont already does a great job of education around this and encouraging it. But the Democrats are missing the message from this past election. We do not need any more new taxes. Taxes are already way too high in Vermont.
Does anyone see the irony of having someone like Mary Sullivan (or Tony Klein before her) on the House Natural Resources and Energy Committee? In its own words, the House Committee on Natural Resources and Energy “considers matters relating to conservation and development of the State’s land resources, geology, forestry, State parks and lands, scenery, air quality issues, environmental permitting, solid waste management, and energy.”
What happened to the “Natural Resources” component of the committee? The conservation and scenery part? It seems the Democrats on this committee are focused solely on the “Energy” and “development” components. How else to explain the total exemptions from Act 250 and all local zoning so developers can dynamite and bulldoze mountaintops for wind towers, filling in streams along the way; and the same exemptions that permit the solar panel carpet-bombing of land zoned for natural resources protection and wildlife corridors. All thanks to legislation that originated from this Committee (or possibly the lobbyists and campaign donors who worked with the Democratic members of this Committee).
Former Democrats and Independents abandoned the Democratic Party in droves this year to vote for Phil Scott, in no small part because of the policies pushed by Democrats on this Committee.
Thank you Rep. Sullivan for standing strong. While yes, what Vermont does isn’t going have a significant impact on reducing world green house gas emissions someone has to take the lead and why not this small state where it is possible to make good decisions for the benefit of the ecosystems of the Earth which are being destroyed resulting in the sixth great extinction. A carbon pollution tax will ;provide an incentive for people to reduce their carbon emissions like driving more fuel efficient vehicles rather than huge pick up trucks which are now the most popular selling vehicle in Vermont.
And yes we need to talk about and deal with population growth.
EI equals PxAxT
Environmental Impact equals the size of the Population times the Affluence of that population times the kind of Technology that people spend their money on. As just one example manual push mowers or huge ridding lawn mowers.
Population size is the major factor and our governor elect wants to grow our population by 70,000. What is that going to do to our carbon emissions never mind the rest of our environment?
When are climate activists going to talk about the cause of our problems and not just the symptoms which is failing miserably.
“Those ads, she argues, failed to mention that 90 percent of the money raised by the levy could go back to Vermonters in the form of direct rebates to consumers, a sales tax cut and credits for home-weatherization projects.”
Let’s break this down shall we? There is a BIG difference between “could go back” and “will go back.” I for one have long ago stopped believing in the Dem’s promise of “tax rebates.’ You can talk all you want here about a “sales tax cut”…but Vermont has passed a law seeking (along with Colorado) to force online retailers to report to the state that you purchased something online. That makes the majority in Vermont very “two-faced” telling you they want to cut sales taxes on one hand, while on the other, doing everything they can to collect sales taxes from a different source. This thereby forces you to pay a sales tax to a retailer that does not have a physical presence in the state. And as for that “credit for home-weatherization” what a load of BS. Isn’t that why we have the state literally stealing money out of our pockets for Efficiency Vermont? When oh when will someone do a report to see just what Efficiency Vermont is doing with all that money.
Go ahead, let them force a carbon tax down Vermonters throats. Then we can all move into Chittenden County, live in a one room rental, ride a bike to work, and wait for our gov’t check. Can we say UN Agenda 21 anyone?
I sure hope Rep. Mary Sullivan has not wasted any money on voice lessons; she’s obviously tone deaf. Only in Chittenden County are the lefty elite so out of tune with the needs of working class motorists struggling to pay the bills. As I recall, Sullivan was also a huge supporter of the Progs’ moronic and disastrous Burlingtom Telecom debacle. Well, at least she’s reliably consistent.