by Mike Smith It's hard to beat an incumbent politician, especially federal ones. In 2014, over 96 percent of incumbent members of Congress were reelected — this despite a collective approval rating of around 11 percent. This trend is true in Vermont, and especially for U.S. senators. Since voters began to directly elect senators beginning in 1913 (prior to that the Vermont Legislature decided who would represent the state in the Senate), no elected U.S. senator has ever lost a reelection in Vermont. Our senators are elected for life, or at least until they choose to step down.
Which takes us to the case of Sen. Patrick Leahy, America's longest-serving member of the senate. He's been in Washington for 42 of the 103 years Vermont voters have been electing senators. Leahy may hold the safest senate seat in the country.
Thus far, Leahy has raised $4.2 million in campaign donations to fend off a challenge from Republican Scott Milne. In stark contrast to his senate colleague and presidential candidate Bernie Sanders — who refused special-interest political action committee or PAC money — Leahy's position is that he will accept and spend PAC money that now totals $3.1 million between his campaign committee and his “leadership PAC.” Ironically, in 1992, Leahy said he would return PAC money.
Leahy's list of contributors is a who's who of corporate America. His donors are rich and very influential, and they contribute to Senator Leahy's campaign because he has the power in the Senate to impact legislation that's important to them. According to recent campaign reports, only 2 percent of his donations are small, individual contributions, and only 9 percent come from Vermont.
Leahy says he needs massive amounts of corporate and PAC money because the 2010 Citizens United Supreme Court decision means he must always watch his back for the possibility that he will have to fight off shadowy outside groups. But two facts fly in the face of this argument. First, when has an outside group ever been a determining factor in the defeat of a Vermont senator? The answer is never. Second, hasn't Leahy built up massive cash advantages with corporate and PAC monies throughout his 42 years career and before the Supreme Court ruling? Of course he has.
The real reason for Leahy's enormous campaign war chest — which is filled with monies raised through the senator's Washington connections — is not to fend off outsiders, but to put him in a better position to crush political opponents.
Why are debates important? Because they are an attempt to level the playing field between a well-heeled incumbent and an out-gunned challenger.
Besides money, another significant advantage federal office holders have in Vermont is the lack of media scrutiny. The Vermont media never covers our federal delegation with the same vigor as other statewide officials, especially governors. It's not the media's fault. We have a small press corps in Vermont, and the distance between Washington D.C. and Vermont makes it easy for members of Congress to avoid them, especially with the help of their large, protective staffs.
The media requires Vermont governors to hold freewheeling and frequent press conferences in order to justify various positions and proposals. But seldom is the same standard applied to our congressional delegation. Instead, the public is expected to settle for controlled events or carefully crafted press releases, the sole purpose of which is to put the member in a favorable light. And it typically works.
Debates matter because we get the rare opportunity to see and hear from a U.S. Senator without the protective staff and information cocoon that often surrounds them. We get to hear real answers to real questions and then those answers being challenged. It seems this is how a democracy is supposed to work. And the greater number of debates, the more informed Vermonters become.
With his massive cash advantage, all of his Washington experience and connections, and a 42-year record, Leahy should have nothing to fear in debating Milne. Yet, he is insisting on only three debates with Milne and none of the debates will be on the state's major commercial television stations. Think about this for a moment. An incumbent governor in Vermont will typically debate their opponent six to 10 times each election cycle, and on all major television and radio outlets. That's twice or three times what Leahy is proposing, and a governor does that every two years instead of just once every six years, which is the length of a senator's term. Is a U.S. senator busier or more important that a Vermont governor? Hardly.
Of course, in the end it is up to the voters to decide if they want incumbents to dodge debates and rely on millions of dollars of campaign spending fueled by special interests in order for them to return to Washington. But one thing this presidential election has shown us is that Americans are fed up with a system that seems rigged to protect only the political elite. Only time will tell if that sentiment is prevalent in Vermont.
Mike Smith is the host of the radio program, “Open Mike with Mike Smith,” on WDEV 550 AM and 96.1, 96.5 and 101.9 FM. He is also a political analyst for WCAX-TV and WVMT radio and is a regular contributor to the Times Argus, Rutland Herald and Vermont Business Magazine He was the secretary of administration and secretary of human services under former Governor Jim Douglas.