Republican gubernatorial candidate Bruce Lisman has sunk $1.6 million of his own money into his campaign, providing nearly all of its funding, according to a campaign finance report filed Friday.
Lisman, 69, of Shelburne, a retired Wall Street executive, has raised $286,561 from other contributors, he reported.
He has spent nearly all of the money, racking up $1,660,564 in expenses, leaving his campaign account with $189,493, the report shows. Lisman has been running television ads regularly since early spring.
An underdog in the Republican primary, Lisman has far outspent his opponent, Lt. Gov. Phil Scott.
Scott, 57, of Berlin, co-owner of a contracting business and lieutenant governor for the last six years, reported raising $859,046 and spending $466,778, leaving him with $370,103. Scott has yet to air any television ads. Scott reported contributing $975 of his own money to his campaign.
Democratic candidate Sue Minter pulled ahead of her primary rivals in campaign funds raised, reporting $893,009. She raised $405,452 of that since March.
Minter, 55, of Waterbury, a former state transportation secretary and state representative, reported spending $596,102. She reported contributing none of her own money to the campaign.
Democratic gubernatorial candidate Peter Galbraith reported a significant amount of self-funding.
Galbraith, 65, of Townshend, a former diplomat and state senator, has contributed $199,793 of his own money. Including that, his campaign reported $328,391 in contributions; it spent $287,111.
Democratic candidate Matt Dunne reported raising $819,625 and spending $611,441. Dunne, 46, of Hartland, a former Google manager and state senator, has spent $4,000 of his own money.
Here is a rundown of the amounts raised and spent for statewide office candidates, grouped by race:
Governor
Bruce Lisman, RepublicanContributions since March: $1,220,623
Total contributions: $1,845,969
Total spent: $1,660,476
Cash left: $185,493
Phil Scott, Republican
Contributions since March: $349,987
Total contributions: $859,046
Total spent: $466,778
Cash left: $370,103
Peter Galbraith, Democrat
Contributions since March: $328,391
Total contributions: $328,391
Total spent: $287,111
Cash left: $41,280
Matt Dunne, Democrat
Contributions since March: $252,156
Total contributions: $819,625
Total spent: $611,441
Cash left: $208,184
Sue Minter, Democrat
Contributions since March: $405,452
Total contributions: $893,009
Total spent: $596,102
Cash left: $296,907
H. Brooke Paige, Democrat
Contributions since March: $5,245
Total contributions: $5,245
Total spent: $880
Cash left: $4,365
Lieutenant governor
David Zuckerman, DemocratContributions since March: $92,183
Total contributions: $156,719
Total spent: $82,906
Cash left: $73,813
Shap Smith, Democrat
Contributions since March: $122,423
Total contributions: $122,423
Total spent: $36,163
Cash left: $86,260
Kesha Ram, Democrat
Contributions since March: $97,848
Total contributions: $200,750
Total spent: $90,980
Cash left: $109,770
Randy Brock, Republican
Contributions since March: $31,394
Total contributions: $62,286
Total spent: $52,790
Cash left: $9,496
Treasurer
Beth Pearce, incumbent DemocratContributions since March: $9,550
Total contributions: $13,575
Total spent: $8,429
Cash left: $4,944
Richard Dunne, Democrat
Contributions since March: $810
Total contributions: $810
Total spent: $430
Cash left: $380
Attorney General
T.J. Donovan, DemocratContributions since March: $57,867
Total contributions: $313,258
Total spent: $91,083
Cash left: $222,145
Deb Bucknam, Republican
Contributions since March: $18,763
Total contributions: $18,763
Total spent: $11,744
Cash left: $7,019
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
What is Lisman trying to do — break Jack McMullen’s record for spending the most dollars per vote in a losing primary campaign?
Given the small number of people likely to vote in the primary, he’s probably on track to spend between $50 and $100 per vote, maybe more.
Is this supposed to be a sign that he is a smart businessman who would be a good steward of state money?
Yeah, it’s kind of like Chris Pearson spending over $60,000 on his state senate primary campaign! You know, the $60k that was dumped on him in one fell swoop by Bernie Sanders. By people who had donated that money to Bernie Sanders, not Chris Pearson. How dare these people try to buy our elections!
Actually Pearson (or any other Chittenden Senate candidate) would need to spend about $375,000 to equal Lisman’s spending per capita of state/district population …. not even Skip Vallee came close that.
But, beyond that, Pearson’s cost per vote will end up in the very low single digits for both the primary and the general, while Lisman will surely end up spending at least $50 per vote, probably closer to $100, in losing to Phil Scott.
And – BTW – those people did donate directly to Pearson — not to Sanders. The money didn’t come from Sanders’ campaign funds, the money came when Sanders sent out an email asking his donors to give money to Pearson (and other legislative candidates around the country) and the donors responded.
Of course the biggest difference is that Pearson is probably going to win his primary, while Lisman won’t.
But Bruce Lisman is more than free to flush more of his Wall Street money straight down the toilet if he wants. It seems to be the same brilliant financial judgement that led him to stand on his desk in the middle of Bear Stearns financial collapse and loudly proclaim to everyone “Bear Stearns has been here a long time, and we’re staying here.” http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB121193290927… (Where is Bear Stearns today?)
And, yeah, Lisman will almost doubtless end up with the state record for most dollars spent per vote in a losing primary campaign. Something he can be remembered for.
Trying to buy an election is trying to buy an election. Whether it’s Lisman spending $1.6 for the Governor’s seat or Sanders/Pearson spending $60,000 for a Vermont legislative seat.
Or Hillary Clinton buying her election.
Or Sanders buying Pearson’s for him.
By the way, I guess you haven’t heard. Bernie has endorsed Hillary and is campaigning for her and is voting for her. You should check the news more often.
I feel sorry for anyone who gives their hard earned money to Lisman. Like giving money to Trump.
Almost like Bernie buying Pearson’s election except that has already been refuted. I guess you can always be right if you don’t actually listen to anyone else.
Uh, except it wasn’t “refuted.” Nice try, though.
Bernie did not give Chris Pearson any money. He put out a statement to his followers that they might consider donating to him. I guess he could have asked some prince in Saudi Arabia or gave some fake speeches to Wall Street for the money but that’s just not the case.
Lest we forget Lisman also blew another million when he started Campaign for Vermont (which was nothing more than a self-funded campaign for him).
What to do when you’re not popular enough to actually get people to contribute. Reminiscent of “Richie Rich” Tarrant and his narcissistic campaigns.
@ Hill:
When it comes to narcissism, Tarrant was a novice compared to Bernie Sanders. Sanders moved to Vermont in the late 60s and a few years later ran for US Senate. Not state legislature. U.S Senate — he started at the top. He lost. Then 2 years later he ran for Governor. He lost. Then he ran for Congress. He lost. Then he ran for Burlington mayor and won by 10 votes. Then he ran for Governor again. He lost. Then he ran for Congress. He lost. Who’s the narcissist?
And you refer to Tarrant’s “campaigns.” Was there more than one besides the 2006 U.S. Senate race?
Shhh…let’s all keep very quiet about Bruce Lisman’s spending spree. If he keeps trying to buy himself into public office after the ignominious end to his career at Bear Stearns, taxpayers and small business owners may recover a little bit of our Wall Street bailout money. It’s in our best interest for Lisman to think it’s possible Vermonters are that deeply foolish and gullible that we’d elect him to public office.