Presidential Turnout: 21 Hopefuls Sought Vermont Votes

In 2020, as of October, 1,216 candidates had filed papers with the Federal Election Commission to run for President. And due to Vermont’s open approach to ballot access, the state’s voters were able to choose from an impressive 21 of them. Those candidates hailed from 16 states and represented a mind-blowing array of parties and ideas.

Trump Platform: “We’ll see what happens.”

Everyone knows the winner by now — Democratic war horse Joe Biden (242,820 votes, or 65%, in Vermont), who represented Delaware in the US Senate for decades until becoming Obama’s Vice President, and the sore loser, Donald Trump (112,704, 30%), a developer and reality TV personality who irritated New Yorkers for decades until moving to Florida, running for President, and winning the right to offend everyone for four years. 

Those Post-Victory Blues: Commentary Link 

The national race was a nail-biter, but the Vermont outcome was hardly in doubt. Vermonters went for every Republican presidential candidate from 1860 to the 1980s. Even FDR couldn’t break through. Since 1988, however, the state’s electoral votes have gone to every Democratic candidate. That didn’t change in 2020. 

But the predictable state outcome provided an opportunity to win “conscience” votes for some other hopefuls — 16 men and three women — competing for Vermont’s presidential votes. Several chose to be listed as Independents, but most represented political parties, some old, some new, with wildly diverse histories and political agendas. 

Let’s see how they did. The most popular turned out to be South Carolina Libertarian Jo Jorgensen (3,608 votes, just shy of 1%), the Green Party’s Howie Hawkins (1,310), and Wyoming-based Independent Kanye West (1,269). The only other candidate receiving more than 1,000 votes was H. Brooke Paige, the Grumpy Old Patriot candidate from Vermont (1,164).

Nationally, Jorgensen — the only female candidate on the ballot in all 50 states — came out on top. Her estimated 1.6 million votes (1.2 %) is the second-highest total for the party in its half century history.

Here are the rest, with their home states and the Vermont votes they received: Christopher LaFontaine, Vermont, Independent (856 votes); Richard Duncan, Ohio, Independent (213); Brian Carroll, California, American Solidarity (209);  Don Blankenship, West Virginia, Constitution (208); Alyson Kennedy, Texas, Socialist Workers (195); Gloria Estela La Riva, California, Liberty Union (166);  Gary Swing, Colorado, Boiling Frog (141); Phil Collins, Wisconsin, Prohibition (137); Keith McCormic, Vermont, Bull Moose (126); Brock Pierce, Puerto Rico, Unaffiliated (100); Jerome Segal, Maryland, Bread and Roses (65); Blake Huber, Colorado, Approval Voting (54); Kyle Kenley Kopitke, Michigan, Independent (53); Rogue “Rocky” De La Fuente,  California, Alliance (48); and Zachary Scalf, Georgia, Independent (29). 

Better luck next time. Fortunately, there will be one. Meanwhile, who were these hopeless hopefuls? 

Five Party People

Jerome Segal of Maryland, represented the Bread and Roses Party (65 votes). Segal is an American philosopher and political activist from Silver Spring. A research scholar at the University of Maryland and president of the Jewish Peace Lobby, he was a candidate in Maryland’s Democratic primary for the US Senate in 2018. During that year, Segal also announced the creation of a new socialist political party, "Bread and Roses," after raising the 10,000 signatures required by the state’s Board of Elections. The party is named after a slogan used by striking workers during the 1912 Lawrence textile strike. To find out more: https://www.segalforpresident.org/

Howie Hawkins is an American trade unionist, environmental activist, and frequent candidate in New York. A co-founder of the Green Party of the United States, he was was also its 2020 presidential candidate (1,310 votes). The GPUS is a federation of state political parties that promotes green politics, specifically environmentalism; nonviolence; social justice; participatory, grassroots democracy; gender equality; LGBTQ rights; anti-war; anti-racism and eco socialism. It was formed in 2001 as the Association of State Green Parties (ASGP) after a split from the Greens/Green Party USA (G/GPUSA) in the late 1990s. After its founding, the GPUS became the primary national green organization in the country, eclipsing the G/GPUSA, which was formed in 1991 out of the Green Committees of Correspondence (CoC), a collection of local green groups active since 1984. For more information: https://howiehawkins.us/

Joanne Jorgensen, candidate of the Libertarian Party, (3,608 votes) is an academic and libertarian political activist from South Carolina. She was previously the Libertarian Party's nominee for vice president in the 1996 presidential election, as the running mate of Harry Browne. Libertarianism is often thought of as 'right-wing' doctrine. However, on social — rather than economic — issues, libertarianism often tends to be 'left-wing'. If any alternative party has an enduring base in Vermont, this is apparently it.

Libertarians share a skepticism of authority and state power, but diverge on the scope of their opposition to existing economic and political systems. The Libertarian Party promotes civil liberties, non-interventionism, laissez-faire capitalism, and limiting the size and scope of government. For more: https://jo20.com/

Don Blankenship, who ran as the Constitution Party candidate, is a West Virginia business executive (208 votes). A candidate for the US Senate in West Virginia in 2018, he was Chairman and CEO of the Massey Energy Company, the sixth-largest US coal company, from 2000 until his retirement in 2010. In December 2015, Blankenship was found guilty of one misdemeanor charge of conspiring to willfully violate mine safety and health standards in relation to the Upper Big Branch mine explosion and was sentenced to one year in prison. 

The Constitution Party, formerly the U.S. Taxpayers' Party until 1999, promotes a right to far-right view of the principles and interests of the US. Its platform is based on originalist interpretations of the Constitution and shaped by principles that it believes were set forth in the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, Bill of Rights, and the Bible. For more: https://www.donblankenship.com/

Phil Collins, the Prohibition Party candidate, currently lives in Wisconsin. Collins has also been active in local politics in Illinois and Nevada (137 votes).  In 2019, he ran in Las Vegas' mayoral election and came in second. On April 14, 2019, he was given the Prohibition Party's vice presidential nomination after initially losing the presidential nomination to Connie Gammon, the original 2020 vice presidential nominee after Bill Bayes withdrew from the presidential nomination. On August 24, 2019, he replaced Gammon as presidential candidate after she withdrew due to health problems. Afterward he announced that he would also run in the American Independent Party’s presidential primary in California. 

On March 3, 2020, Collins won that primary. However, the party elected to give its presidential nomination to Rocky De La Fuente and its vice presidential nod to Kanye West. Both are also candidates for president on the Vermont ballot. The Prohibition Party has nominated a candidate for president in every election since 1872, making it the longest-lived American political party after the Democrats and Republicans. For more: https://philcollins4president.weebly.com/

Three California Dreamers

Brian Carroll, the American Solidarity Party candidate (209 votes), taught junior high history and other subjects in Farmersville, California from 1977 to 1983. At the time, he also wrote for the Valley Voice newspaper, especially on the local need for public transportation. He taught nine years in Colombia, South America and one summer in China. In 2008, he returned to teaching in Farmersville. Carroll ran for California's 22nd congressional district in 2018 against Republican Devin Nunes and Democrat Andrew Janz, a contentious race due to Nunes' role in the Trump investigation. 

The American Solidarity Party (ASP) is a Christian democratic political party founded in 2011. It emphasizes "the importance of strong families, local communities, and voluntary associations."  Socially conservative, the party defends religious freedom, favors a social market economy, and seeks "widespread economic participation and ownership,” along with a safety net. Its platform calls for conservation and a transition toward more renewable sources of energy, while rejecting population control measures. For more: http://briancarroll.life/

Rogue “Rocky” De La Fuente was on Vermont’s presidential ballot representing the Alliance Party (48 votes). A businessman and perennial candidate, he was the presidential nominee of both the Reform Party and his self-created American Delta Party in 2016.  In 2018, De La Fuente was on the ballot in nine states' primaries for US Senate. He campaigned as a critic of President Trump’s immigration policies. This year, he entered Republican primaries, but secured the nominations of the Reform Party, the Alliance Party, and American Independent Party.  

The Alliance Party was formed on October 14, 2018. In December, the American Party of South Carolina successfully asked the state Election Commission to change its name to the Alliance Party. In May 2019, the Independence Party of Minnesota voted to affiliate with the Alliance party. The Independent Party of Connecticut also affiliated, and the Alliance Party became ballot qualified in Mississippi. For more: https://rocky101.com/en_us/en/

Gloria Estela La Riva, a presidential candidate on Vermont’s Liberty Union Party line (166 votes), is a California-based socialist activist with the Party for Socialism and Liberation (PSL) and the Peace and Freedom Party. This is her tenth consecutive candidacy as either a presidential or vice presidential candidate. This time she is running on the PSL, Peace and Freedom, and Liberty Union tickets. La Riva was previously a member of the Workers World Party. She ran as the PSL and Peace and Freedom Party presidential candidate in 2008 and 2016. The PSL is a US communist party established in 2004 after a split in the Workers World Party. For more: https://www.lariva2020.org/

Two Rocky Mountain Party Builders

Blake Huber, the Approval Voting presidential candidate (54 votes), hails from Colorado. He worked in the telecommunications industry until his retirement, and is a co-founder of the party, which focuses on advocating for a voting system that allows people to select multiple candidates. In 2018, the party ran Huber for Colorado Secretary of State. It was recognized as a minor party in Colorado in 2019. For more: http://www.approvalvotingparty.com/president-blake-huber/

Gary Swing, a 48-year-old cultural events promoter in Denver, was on Vermont’s presidential ballot as the Boiling Frog candidate for president (141 votes). Swing originally filed FEC paperwork to run for US Senate in Colorado as a member of that party. Boiling Frog is more of a ballot label for his independent U.S. Senate bid than a national political institution. That said, according to coverage of Swing’s candidacy in the Bennington Banner, Boiling Frogs are concerned about global warming and stovetop warming, amphibian rights, preservation of endangered species, water pollution, and conservation of wetlands and other natural habitats. It makes sense. For more: https://theswingvote.wixsite.com/unity

I could go on, but you get the idea; a candidate for almost every conscience.

Still, lest we forget, also on Vermont’s presidential ballot you would have found... from Texas, Alyson Kennedy, representing the Socialist Workers Party (195 votes; 40 years ago Bernie Sanders was one of its electors), and Keith McCormic, leading the Bull Moose Party (126 votes); from Vermont, H. Brooke Paige, representing the Grumpy Old Patriots (1,164 votes) and an Independent, Christopher LaFontaine (856 votes).

Speaking of Independents, Vermonters also had the option of voting for Wyoming’s Kanye West (1,269 votes, who led the field with some assistance from Jared Kushner), Ohio’s Richard Duncan (213 votes), Michigan’s Kyle Kenley Kopitke (53 votes), Georgia’s Zachary Scalf (29 votes), or Puerto Rico’s Brock Pierce (100 votes), a candidate so independent he was listed as Unaffiliated. All totals are the unofficial ballot results from the Vermont Secretary of State.

Vermont Results

Vermont Digs Doug: With 265,088, Vermont’s top vote-getter turned out to be State Auditor Doug Hoffer. He even topped the 248,205 votes cast for incumbent governor Phil Scott, a moderate Republican (no, they’re not extinct). Of course, it helps not to have a Republican opponent. (What’s up with that?) Doug is a straight shooter and a Vermont public servant for more than 30 years. 

The remainder of the Auditor votes (over 48,000, or 15%) went to Progressive candidate Cris Ericson, which will allow the Progressive Party to maintain major party status. Ironically, Ericson — who won five(!) Progressive primary races — ran as a supporter of Donald Trump, who won only 30% of the Vermont vote. 

The most disappointing outcome was David Zuckerman’s 99,066 votes (27.46%) in the governor’s race. Like Hoffer, Zuckerman is also a member of Vermont’s Progressive Party. It was a heavy lift, and Vermonters don’t usually reject a governor after just one or two (two-year) terms, especially during a crisis. (Scott has had two terms.) But it also suggests that Vermont’s Democratic coalition may not hold together for a candidate with mixed party loyalties. The last time we saw an outcome like this was 2004, when former Progressive Mayor Peter Clavelle got 38% running as a Democrat against incumbent Republican Jim Douglas.

Rise of the Anti-Masons: America's First Third Party

In 1826 William Morgan, a Freemason and printer from Batavia in New York, became dissatisfied with his lodge and decided to publish the details of some Masonic rituals. That September he was seized by parties unknown, taken to Fort Niagara, and never seen again.

     It was widely believed that Morgan had been kidnapped and killed by fellow Masons, a suspicion that fed growing hostility to the order. The Anti-Mason movement spread rapidly across New England and eventually west, along the way introducing important political innovations like nominating conventions and the adoption of party platforms. Morgan’s disappearance – a crime-based political scandal in its day – led more people to suspect that Freemasons were just not loyal citizens. In fact, many Masons were judges, businessmen, bankers and politicians, which made it easy at the time for ordinary people to view the group as a powerful, secret and potentially anti-democratic society. Others suspected its links to the occult and ceremonial magic. This was, after all, the time of the Second Great Awakening.

     A more broadly persuasive argument was that the secret oaths administered by lodges could bind members to favor each other over “outsiders.” Popular outrage spread as people decided to challenge what they viewed as basically a conspiracy.  

     One of the leading Anti-Masons was Thaddeus Stevens, a Vermont native of Danville who made his name in Pennsylvania and later emerged as a leading abolitionist, founder of the Republican Party, and post-Civil War activist for civil rights and stiff retribution against the south. Attending the Anti- Mason Party’s first national convention, Stevens attracted notice with his strong speeches and oratorical style. In one of them, “On The Masonic Influence Upon The Press,” he deplored the lack of publicity given to the convention and attributed that as well to Masonic influence.
     In 1833 Stevens was elected to the Pennsylvania legislature on the Anti-Masonic ticket, where his legislative talents quickly showed themselves. He was an excellent debater with a devastating wit who could cut his opposition to shreds. He also knew how to maneuver behind the scenes. But that’s another story…
     Two years before Stevens’ election in Pennsylvania the Party was already so popular that Vermont elected an Anti-Mason governor, William Palmer. His victory indicated the intensity of public opposition to elite power in the state, not to mention how far a single-issue movement can go.

Vermont’s Anti-Mason Interlude

     William A. Palmer was no political newcomer. He was a popular Jeffersonian Democrat and former judge who had previously represented Vermont in the US Senate by the time he ran for governor on the Anti-Mason ticket in 1831.

     Vermonters had already elected another Anti-Mason to Congress, and more than 30 members of the movement represented the party in the General Assembly. Still, it was a shock to the establishment when Palmer led in the statewide popular vote. It took nine ballots in the legislature before he won.

     And who was Palmer? A graduate of UVM with a law degree, he had practiced in Chelsea and held numerous posts, including State Supreme Court judge for two years. In 1818, when Palmer was elected to the US Senate he was a Democratic-Republican. In 1823 he became a National Republican. He was a delegate to three State Constitutional Conventions between 1828 and 1850. In other words, Palmer was clearly part of the political establishment – but not a Mason.

     He sincerely believed that secret societies were “evil.” But he didn’t make radical claims in his speeches. In his first inaugural speech, Palmer promised to appoint only men who were “unshackled by any earthly allegiance except to the constitution and laws,” and he suggested legislation to prohibit the administration of oaths except “when necessary to secure the faithful discharge of public trusts and to elicit truth in the administration of justice.”

    And why did Palmer want to “diminish the frequency” of oaths, as he said. Because of the “influence which they exercise over the human mind.”  In other words, a chilling effect.

     

     In 1832, the national Anti-Mason Party conducted the first presidential nominating convention in US history in Baltimore. Its presidential candidate was William Wirt, a former Mason who won 7.78 percent of the popular vote – but Vermont’s seven electoral votes. William Slade, who would later become Vermont governor as a Whig, was sent to Congress as an opponent of both Masonry and slavery. Since the state had one-year terms of office, Palmer ran and won again. But he still couldn’t attract a clear majority of the vote. This time it took 43 ballots before he was re-elected. 

     In 1834, he finally won on the first ballot, but that was because the other political parties could see the collapse of the Anti-Masons coming and were competing to win over its constituents. 

     Palmer also led in the 1835 vote. But this time he couldn’t convince the legislature. After weeks of wrangling and 63 ballots the lawmakers declared themselves deadlocked and turned to Silas Jenison, a former Anti-Mason official and winner of the Lieutenant-Governor’s race. The rest of the Anti-Mason ticket was endorsed by the Whigs. 

***

     Gridlock in Vermont’s General Assembly over Palmer’s elections was so disruptive that it led to a Constitutional Convention and the amendment that created the State Senate. Criticism of the unicameral legislature was not new and proposals for a second chamber dated back to 1793. But in 1836 the idea of reducing the power of the House achieved critical mass. The Convention stripped it of “supreme legislative power.” 

     Crucially, bankers backed the change, mainly with the expectation that two chambers would be easier to handle. This is circumstantial evidence suggesting that, in opposing the Masons, the movement was also confronting the banks. The general public mainly thought the House had become too arrogant, intransigent and uncooperative. 

     For Vermont Anti-Masons, the use of secret oaths represented an invasion of the “civil power of a sovereign state” and a violation of liberty. In June 1833, at the height of movement, the Anti-Mason State Convention passed a dozen resolutions defining its position. 

     Vermont’s Anti-Masons ultimately succeeded in forcing the lodges to close – for a while. But that left the state party with less reason to exist. In 1836 Vermont’s Anti-Mason leaders, including future governor Slade, joined the new, anti-Jacksonian Whig Party. 

     The party’s third and final National convention was held in Philadelphia’s Temperance Hall in November, 1838. Almost entirely engulfed by the Whigs, the gathering unanimously supported William Henry Harrison for President and Daniel Webster for Vice President. When the Whig National Convention chose Harrison and John Tyler, the Anti-Masons did nothing... and soon vanished.

Originally posted on December 14, 2015 

Another Realignment in the People's Republic: Part Two

One outcome of the March 2012 elections in Burlington was already clear by January: the next mayor would not be a member of the city’s Progressive Party. In November 2011, Mayor Bob Kiss, the third progressive to serve as chief executive since 1981, had decided -- under pressure -- not to seek a third term.
    In December, Sen. Tim Ashe, a former Progressive City Councilor who hoped to run as a fusion candidate with the Democratic nomination, narrowly lost to Miro Weinberger in a hotly contested caucus race. Five years later Ashe is President Pro Tempore of the Democratic-controlled Vermont Senate.

Ashe, Lorber, Kranichfeld and Weinberger debate.

      After deferring a final decision for more than a month, on the last Sunday of January 2012 local Progressives finally voted, unanimously, not to field a mayoral candidate for the first time in decades. About 30 people attended the party’s caucus at the Fletcher Free Library, somewhat fewer than had showed up in December.
     Progressive Rep. Chris Pearson suggested that it was time to “streamline.” Last November, after a decade in the Vermont House, Pearson became a State Senator, elected as a Progressive-Democrat.
     In a 2012 post-Caucus statement, Party Vice-Chair Elijah Bergman explained that local Progressives believed “the best way we can continue to stand up for low and moderate income residents is to focus on winning city council seats.” To that end, however, the Party had nominated only two council candidates.
     In Ward 2, Max Tracy went on to defeat Democrat Eric Covey for the seat being vacated by Democrat Dave Berezniak. In Ward 3, Rachel Siegel was recruited for a successful race against Democrat Sean Hurley, filling the spot previously held by Emma Mulvaney-Stanak. She had announced plans to "take a break" from elected office. Mulvaney-Stanak has since become chair of the Vermont Progressive Party, and Siegel has left the Council to become director of the Peace & Justice Center.
     Bergman said in 2012 that members of his party “look forward to meeting with the announced mayoral candidates and sharing our priorities and vision for the city.” But he also suggested that an endorsement for Independent Wanda Hines was possible, although she hadn't requested it. At the Caucus, Hines appeared to be the clear favorite. In the end, however, the biggest Progressive endorsement came from Bernie Sanders, who backed Weinberger.
     Many progressives argued that Kiss was a poor communicator and criticized his handling of financial troubles at Burlington Telecom. Hines, who at the time worked on equity issues in the city’s Community and Economic Development Office, was one the few public figures who defended the administration and mayor.
     Shortly after the Progressive Caucus, Weinberger issued a statement proposing a coalition “to tackle vital affordable housing, education, environmental, poverty and workers issues facing the city.” He credited the Progressive Party for making “enormous progress over the last 30 years as a result of strong leadership” and said he hoped to “earn the support of Burlington Progressives.”
    Since then his attitude has changed. Last week, while endorsing  Progressive Councilor Jane Knodell in her re-election bid, Weinberger simultaneously attacked her Party for nominating candidates “from a reactionary fringe that is opposed to much of what we are trying to achieve.” He was talking specifically about two candidates, Genese Grill and Charles Simpson, both running insurgent campaigns in opposition to the mayor's development agenda. Grill is actually challenging Knodell as an Independent.
     In 2012, Weinberger also argued that progress had stalled in Burlington during the previous six years. But he was careful then to assign the lion's share of the blame to Mayor Kiss alone. During the Democratic caucus fight, Ashe and the other Democrats in the race took a similar stand.
     Five years later, Progressives still have four City Council seats. But Selene Coburn is on her way to the State legislature and Knodell, like other Progressives in the legislature and state office, have forged a working alliance with Democrats, an informal fusion that informs decisions and priorities.
     Weinberger defines the current dynamic as "a struggle going on for the soul of the party of Sanders, Clavelle and Knodell.” But the real questions remain the same as they were ten years ago, another moment when local Progressive leaders decided to support and share power with Democrats: Whose Party is it, and where is it heading? 

Part One

The Politics of Realignment: Sanders and the Greens

"Warning," shouted the headline of the full-page ad in Burlington's daily newspaper just days before the most watched --and most expensive --elections in city history. Concocted by Bernie Sanders' Republican opponent, the ad listed a series of dire consequences if Burlington's mayor won a second term... (from WIN Magazine, July 1983) A look at the challenges of forging independent alliances and striking a balance between eco-radicalism and effectiveness.

Lockheed in Vermont: Sanders’ Corporate Conundrum

Progressive Eclipse – Chapter Ten

Sandia, Citizens United, and Smart Meters: December 2011

EVERYONE WAS TALKING about the one percent, the few with most of the wealth. The inequality that Bernie Sanders had railed against since his first campaign was becoming indisputable. Therefore, it wasn’t surprising that he was one of the first elected officials to back the Occupy Wall Street movement. Sanders offered practical proposals to address some of its complaints and praised protesters for “shining a national spotlight on the most powerful, dangerous and secretive economic and political force in America.”

He was also leading the charge to have Congress consider a Constitutional Amendment to address a radical Supreme Court ruling. On Jan. 21, 2010, in the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission case, the nation’s High Court said that corporations are “persons” with First Amendment rights and can’t be prevented from spending unlimited funds on political campaigns.

OWS Protest, October 2011

The case had begun in 2008 with a dispute over the right of a non-profit corporation to air a film critical of Hillary Clinton, and whether the group, Citizens United, could promote their film with ads featuring Clinton’s image – an apparent violation of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, also known as McCain–Feingold. The Supreme Court struck down the McCain–Feingold provision that prohibited corporations – both for- and non-profit, as well as unions – from broadcasting “electioneering communications” within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary. It did allow for disclaimer requirements and disclosure by sponsors of advertisements.

The problem went back to the 1970s, when Congress amended the Federal Election Campaign Act in an attempt to regulate campaign contributions and spending. After that, in the controversial 1976 Buckley v. Valeo case, the Supreme Court ruled that spending money to influence elections is constitutionally protected speech and struck down parts of the law. It also ruled that candidates could give unlimited amounts of money to their own campaigns.

Prior to Citizens United, however, a century of US election laws prohibited corporate managers from spending general treasury funds in federal elections. Instead, they could expend on campaigns through separate segregated funds, known as corporate political action committees. Shareholders, officers and managers who wanted a corporation to advance a political agenda could contribute funds for that purpose. But the Supreme Court’s new ruling said that corporations had the same First Amendment rights to make independent expenditures as natural people, and restrictions prohibiting both corporations and unions from spending their general treasury funds on independent expenditures violated the First Amendment.

According to Robert Reich, a public policy expert and former Secretary of Labor, Citizens United would extent corporate control and drive up the cost of future presidential races. “All this money is drowning out the voices of average Americans,” he noted. “Most of us don’t have the dough to break through. Giving First Amendment rights to money and corporations has hobbled the First Amendment rights of the rest of us.”

The growing influence of corporations made the emerging relationship between Sandia Laboratories and Bernie Sanders somewhat perplexing. Sandia was managed by Lockheed Martin for the Department of Defense, had roots in the Manhattan Project and a history of turning nuclear research into weapons. Most of its revenue still came from maintaining and developing defense systems. Beyond that, as Sanders himself had frequently charged, Lockheed Martin ranked at the top of the heap in corporate misconduct. Between 1995 and 2010 it was charged with 50 violations and paid $577 million in fines and settlements. Sanders, an opponent of the Iraq war and wasteful military spending, had been a vocal congressional critic for more than a decade. It exemplified corporate power and the one percent.

In the mid-1990s, he’d led the charge against $92 billion in bonuses for Lockheed Martin executives – nearly $31 million of that received from the Department of Defense as "restructuring costs" – after the corporation laid off 17,000 workers. He called that “payoffs for layoffs.” In September 1995, after his amendment to stop the bonuses passed in the US House, Lockheed launched a campaign to kill the proposal. When the amendment came back to the floor, Sanders decided that it still contained too much for the military and opposed it himself.

In 2009, he was still going after Lockheed in the Senate, calling out its “systemic, illegal, and fraudulent behavior, while receiving hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayer money.” By then, however, he had visited Sandia headquarters and come away eager to have a satellite lab in Vermont.

Learning to love Sandia

In January 2010, Sanders led a delegation to Sandia’s New Mexico lab for a closer look. The group included the CEO of Green Mountain Power, the state’s leading private utility; the vice president for research at the University of Vermont; the co-founder of successful alternative energy companies; and the head of the Vermont Energy Investment Corporation, which runs Efficiency Vermont.

At the end of the same year, ten days after the mini-filibuster that jump-started the “draft Bernie” for president campaign, Mayor Bob Kiss announced the results of his own Lockheed negotiations, begun at billionaire Richard Branson’s Carbon War Room. It took the form of a “letter of cooperation” to address climate change by developing local green-energy solutions.

Lockheed’s proposal to the city focused on “the economic and strategic challenges posed by our dependence on foreign oil and the potential destabilizing effects of climate change.” Their partnership would “demonstrate a model for sustainability that can be replicated across the nation.” Meanwhile, the Vermont Sandia lab, simultaneously being developed at UVM with Sanders help, would focus on cyber security and “smart grid” technology. Yet Kiss and Sanders denied knowing about the partnership being negotiated by the other. Both Burlington’s Progressive mayor and its famous former mayor-turned-Senator apparently saw no need to consult. Yet somehow everyone was on the same page.

By 2011, Sanders was also supporting the Pentagon’s proposal to base Lockheed-built F-35 fight jets at the Burlington International Airport. Despite his past criticisms of the corporation’s serial misconduct and excess, he joined with Vermont’s most enthusiastic booster, Senator Patrick Leahy, signing on to a joint statement of support. If the fighter jet, widely considered a massive military boondoggle, was going to be built and deployed anyway, Sanders argued that some of the work ought to done by Vermonters, while Vermont National Guard jobs should certainly be protected. Noise impacts and neighborhood dislocation were minimized, while criticism of corporate exploitation had given way to pork barrel politics and a justification based on protecting military jobs.

Still, his position hadn’t changed that much. Sandia’s nuclear associations were never a major obstacle; Sanders had once been pro-nuclear power, and his criticisms were restrained. His stalwart alliance with labor had always outweighed his skepticism about military spending. And his corporate criticism, which focused on fairness and inequality, rarely prevented him from making an alliance that furthered “bold” initiatives or burnished his record of leadership. 

Pushing the partnership: Sandia's Rich Stulen presents, Powell, Shumlin and Sanders listen.

When Vermont’s partnership with Sandia was ultimately announced, Governor Peter Shumlin didn’t merely share the credit for bringing the Center for Energy Transformation and Innovation to Vermont. He joked that Sanders was “like a dog with a bone” on the issue. They had agreed to co-host a press conference on December 12 to outline the initiative, which now included Sandia, UVM, Green Mountain Power, several Vermont energy businesses and state government. The ambitious goal, announced the Senator, was to create “a revolution in the way we are using power.” At this point the “Draft Bernie” for president campaign was underway and running as a Democrat, most likely in 2016, was on the table.

For the next three years, Sandia’s new outpost would have up to $15 million to research energy efficiency, develop renewable and “localized sources” and, according to Sanders, make Vermont “the first state to have near-universal smart meter installations.” Shumlin meanwhile announced a Sandia pledge to invest $3 million a year, along with $1 million each from the Department of Energy and state coffers.

Several enthusiastic backers – Sandia VP Richard Stulen, GMP’s Mary Powell, and UVM’s Acting President John Bramley – joined the governor at Sanders’ Burlington office for the launch. For Sandia, it was “a way to understand all of the challenges that face all states,” Stulen explained. Vermont’s size simply made it more possible “to get something done,” especially since “integration” had already begun with the university, utilities and other stakeholders.

It didn’t hurt that Vermont’s reputation for energy innovation had also attracted $69.8 million in US Department of Energy funding to promote a rapid statewide conversion to smart grid technology. This would be matched by another $69 million from Vermont utilities. The goal was to “turn the grid from a one-way into a two-way street,” Stulen announced. Another focus would be to ensure reliable service. That meant “anticipating any cyber challenges that may be opened up, or vulnerabilities that may be opened up as we move to this new future,” he explained. “Sandia is very much in the forefront of cyber research.” 

Sanders’ statement stressed the more provincial point that although the US had 17 national labs doing “cutting edge research,” none of them were yet located in New England.  “It occurred to me,” he explained, “that we have the potential to establish a very strong and positive relationship with Sandia here in the State of Vermont.” Thus, his intention was to turn the three-year arrangement into “a long-term presence.” By implication, Lockheed Martin had gone from corporate scofflaw to valued research partner.

Vermont as testing ground

“From an environmental, global warming and economic perspective, it is enormously important that we transform our energy system away from fossil fuel to energy efficiency and sustainable energy,” Sanders argued at the launch. “And working with Sandia and their wide areas of knowledge – some of the best scientists in the country – we hope to take a state that is already a leader in some of these areas even further.”

For many activists and progressives, it sounded more like corporate “greenwashing” than a bold step forward.

Shumlin called it “a really exciting development” for the state. “We have an extraordinary opportunity to show the nation how to use smart grid, how to use energy efficiency to save money for businesses, and for consumers. And how to insure that Vermont is the leader in getting off our addiction to oil.” He noted that when people asked him how Vermont had snagged so much money for the project, his answer was the partnership the center would represent. “It’s a huge opportunity and a huge accomplishment.”

On the other hand, there was little dispute that having so many interactive devices on two-way networks would create new risks. In fact, Kenneth van Meter, Lockheed’s manager of energy and cyber services, admitted it, predicting that by 2015 there would be “440 million new hackable points on the grid. Nobody’s equipped to deal with that today.”

Asked about cyber threats, Stulen acknowledged that “more portals” certainly did create more potential threats, but countered that “we think this is a manageable situation. In fact, the benefits far outweigh the risks.” The main benefit was the potential for lower utilities bills by monitoring home energy use. But security would also be a focus. “We don’t see it as an overriding issue right now, but as a national laboratory our job is to anticipate the future,” he said.

Smart Meters, the basic unit of a smart grid, are digital, usually wireless utility meters with the ability to collect information and transmit it to a central location. Supporters claim their widespread use will improve energy efficiency, service reliability, and the environment. Critics counter that they also make the power grid more vulnerable to hacking, have potential radiation-related health effects, and don’t really reduce energy consumption. They also charge that “time-of-use” pricing penalizes people who can least afford it, while a centralized grid threatens privacy and gives corporations more access to private data.

Smart meters have also been linked to fires and other damage, but aren’t covered by homeowners insurance because the devices haven’t been industry-approved. Needless to say, such problems and potential side effects didn’t come up at Sanders’ press conference.

Instead, the Senator explained that “the federal government has invested $4 billion in smart grid technology, and they want to know that we’re going to work out some of the problems as other states follow us. So Vermont, in a sense, becomes a resource for other states to learn how to do it, how to overcome problems that may arise.” Another way to put that: Vermont would be a testing ground, Sandia’s smart grid guinea pig.

It was a good example of Sanders’ style and pragmatism, leveraging Vermont’s assets in a privately negotiated arrangement, a public-private partnership with PR value and short-term economic benefits – but unknown long-term consequences. And justifying the high-level deal on the grounds of leading the nation, a transparent appeal to state chauvinism.

“In many ways, we are a laboratory for the rest of this country in this area,” Sanders crowed. “With Sandia’s help, I think we are going to do that job very effectively.” But in another way, it suggested that being a corporate predator wasn’t always disqualifying, especially when weighed against the mainstream acclaim and leadership role such a partnership would confer.

Despite the confident presentation, however, the launch ended abruptly after a single question was asked about the city’s aborted partnership with Lockheed Martin. Before a TV reporter could even complete his query Sanders interrupted and challenged it. Lockheed is not “a parent company” of Sandia, he objected.

Then, as often the case when fielding unwelcome questions, he declined to say more – about Lockheed Martin or the climate change agreement Mayor Kiss had signed, the standards adopted by the City Council, the mayor’s veto, or Lockheed’s subsequent withdrawal from the deal. Instead, he turned the question over to Stulen, the man from Sandia, who offered what he called “some myth-busting.”

It was more like a clarification. All national laboratories are required to have “an oversight board provided by the private sector,” he said. “So, Lockheed Martin does provide oversight, but all of the work is done by Sandia National Laboratories and we’re careful to put firewalls in place between the laboratory and Lockheed Martin.”

In other words, trust us to respect the appropriate boundaries, do the right thing, and follow the rules. Moments later, the press conference was over.

NEXT: A Tale of Two Caucuses

Pragmatic Populism: Making Things Happen

Progressive Eclipse - Chapter Nine

January 1999

WE MET AT the start of a mind-boggling week. President Bill Clinton was two days from launching a new round of Iraq bombings – on the eve of his own impeachment. As Vermont’s sole representative in the US House, Bernie Sanders had already made up his mind about Clinton: yes to censure, no to removal from office or resignation. But he was equivocating on the subject of intervention.

A critic of high defense spending who had voted against the first Gulf war, Sanders nevertheless thought that military action was sometimes appropriate, in Yugoslavia or to oust a dictator like Saddam Hussein. “I do not want to see a man like this develop biological or chemical weapons,” he explained. “So, it’s not an easy situation.”



President Clinton's impeachment photo op; Bernie Sanders stands behind Hillary Clinton

The real trouble wasn’t militarism. he asserted; it was education and public opinion. Unlike the broad opposition that emerged to the Vietnam War, Sanders explained, about “80 percent of the American people” were currently willing to support just about any decision to use force. “That makes it difficult for people in Congress to oppose it,” even though “the tactic often backfires.”

 

More sobering, he didn’t expect that situation to change in the near future, “until tens of millions of people say no.” And he didn’t think most peace activists were on the right track. “Winning credibility is the first step to building a broad-based movement,” he counseled, and the way to do that is to take on bread and butter issues. “I don’t think you can just look at the issue of war and peace,” Sanders said. “People have got to know you are on their side.”

“I have long been concerned that some ‘progressive activists’ do not stand up and fight effectively or pay enough attention to the needs of ordinary Americans,” he explained. “Right now, one of the issues I am terribly concerned about is what is being proposed for social security, which I think would be a disaster. It affects senior citizens today. It affects future generations. How much discussion is there of that issue among activists and intellectuals, who should understand it? I’ve heard very little.”

Before arriving in Congress, Sanders himself had little idea of how the legislative branch really operated. The same was true during his early days as Burlington mayor, when he learned hard lessons about dealing with an unsympathetic city council and entrenched bureaucracy. Being a congressman change his perspective; years later, he knew how the game was played. But it still galled him that “what we read in the textbooks about how a bill becomes a law just ain’t the case.”

As an example he pointed to conference committees, which are supposed to iron out legislative differences. “How many people know that when you have the House and Senate agreeing on a position, the ten people in that room can junk it completely – even when there is agreement?”

It was the kind of rhetorical question that peppered his speech, this one conveying an angry belief that the public is kept in the dark about routine abuses of power and corruption of democratic processes. “I get outraged at both the television and newspapers about their refusal to educate people about how the process works,” he complained.

A key lesson of his early years in Congress was that winning often involved working with people whose stands on other issues you abhorred. In fact, much of his legislative success came through forging deals with strange ideological bedfellows. An amendment to bar spending in support of defense contractor mergers, for example, was pushed through with the aid of Chris Smith, a prominent opponent of abortion. John Kasich, whose views of welfare, the minimum wage and foreign policy could hardly be more divergent from Sanders’, helped him phase out risk insurance for foreign investments. And a “left-right coalition” led by Sanders helped to derail “fast track” legislation on international agreements pushed by Bill Clinton.

Now at the mid-point of his US House career, Sanders had become skeptical about the urge to “moralize and be virtuous and not talk to anybody.” While acknowledging that it felt odd at times having ultra-conservatives as political allies, “the job is to pass legislation– and I say that in a positive sense – so you seize the opportunity to make things happen."

Still, closer to his heart was another role – provocateur. “I respect people who are in the political process,” he put it with a smile. He also obviously enjoyed flushing out political elites. “Issues affecting billions of people with the world not knowing what’s going on,” he complained. “I think, as a result of the role I and other have played, there may be more transparency. But obviously the issue goes beyond that.”

We were getting to the root of his worldview: international financial groups protecting the interests of speculators and banks, at the expense of the poor and working people behind a veil of secrecy. Governments reduced to the status of figureheads under international capitalist management. Both major political parties kowtowing to big money flaks. Media myopia fueling public ignorance. And himself, a truth-teller whose message changes history.

His task, Sanders had long ago decided, was to raise political consciousness and expose the real agendas of the powerful. 

Yet when I asked whether he would consider a run for president he laughed. It would be fun, he admitted, and predicted that “we’d get a good response.” At that point, however, before his election to the Senate, the calculation was that staying in Congress gave him more influence than running an “educational” campaign.

Sanders said he considered it “imperative that people keep working on what is a very difficult task; that is, creating a third party in America.” But he had no plans to help develop one, in Vermont or elsewhere. “I am very much preoccupied and work very hard being Vermont’s congressman,” he pointed out, deflecting such a responsibility with customary bluntness: “I am not going to play an active role in building a third party.”

This sounded like a contradiction, but also reflected his experience and political predicament. He endorsed the idea of building a third party – in principle. But he had maintained an arms-length relationship with political parties since his races in the late 1970s. He seemed sincere when expressing the hope that the Progressive organization he’d helped to build would expand beyond Burlington – and he sometimes endorsed Progressive candidates. But he also backed Democrats, and sometimes discouraged Progressives from running, while generally avoiding involvement in party-building – especially since that could lead to calls to support Progressive candidates against Democrats.

Over time Sanders had made peace with the Democratic leadership. And he had never been embarrassed about playing to win. After all, he was making history, as he pointed out more than once. If the choice was between a “virtuous protest” and “popular appeal” he naturally went with the path to success – as long as it didn’t violate any core beliefs.

Meanwhile, he could justifiably claim that there were “not very many members of Congress who hold my views. The President does not hold my views. The corporate media does not hold my views. That is the reality I have to deal with every single day.” His job, as he had defined it, was to understand the constraints of politics and “do the best you can with the powers you have. You don’t just stand on a street corner giving a speech.”

The remark sounded almost ironic. After all, giving a speech – pretty much the same one – is what Sanders does best. Over the years it had already taken him from third party obscurity to the most private club in the world. And after the 2008 financial meltdown and election of Barack Obama, it was only a matter of time until his pungent mix of middle-class outrage and “flexible” populism went from C-SPAN to prime time.

NEXT: The Lockheed Conundrum