Pat Leahy’s re-election bid looking safer all the time

This may be of limited interest to people outside Vermont, but I thought it was hilarious so I decided to share.

Jack McMullen is a successful New England businessman interested in Republican politics. Shortly after moving to Vermont in 1998, the millionaire conservative sought the GOP nomination to take on popular incumbent Sen. Pat Leahy (D). He failed miserably.

In a charming little story about life in a small state like Vermont, a retired, 79-year-old dairy farmer named Fred Tuttle spent just $16 on his GOP primary “campaign” and captured the nomination from McMullen. (Not $1,600, not $16,000, just $16.)

Tuttle wasn’t actually trying to win the primary; he ran as a favor to a neighbor who was filming a low-budget regional movie. The movie, “Man With a Plan,” showed Tuttle playing himself in his familiar blue-bib overalls, appearing as a down-on-his-luck dairy farmer who runs for Congress because he needs the money.

When Vermont Republicans went to the polls, Tuttle beat McMullen, 55% to 45%, and the retired dairy farmer became a local legend. (Tuttle later endorsed Leahy during the Senate campaign, Leahy won easily, and everyone had a good laugh.)

Anyway, Leahy is up for re-election in 2004 and McMullen is giving it another shot — and probably hoping Fred Tuttle isn’t mounting another bid. But if I were advising McMullen, I’d encourage him to find himself a reputable election lawyer.

McMullen appears to be the only person seeking the right to lose, I mean, take on Leahy next year, and he’s already been endorsed by the Republican county chairs in each of Vermont’s 16 counties. He’s even begun sending out fundraising letters for his campaign. McMullen’s campaign has not, however, begun filing Federal Election Commission reports because, as his press secretary explained, he hasn’t spent or received $5,000 yet.

The fundraising appeals, obtained by a Vermont newspaper columnist, include the usual vitriol against Leahy, blaming the Democrat for opposing Bush’s right-wing judicial nominees.

“I realize you may not live in Vermont,” McMullen’s letter says, “but Pat Leahy is a national menace.”

The campaign has refused to divulge which direct mail firm has been hired to produce the mailing, or even what state the firm is in. The McMullen campaign also refuses to say how many letters were sent or how many were sent out-of-state. But that’s not the funny part.

The local columnist who saw the letter realized that a mailing like this can cost several thousand dollars so he asked the campaign how much the effort cost. McMullen’s press secretary, Noah Pollack, said the mailing cost “nothing.”

“It’s not a [campaign] expense,” Pollack said. “It’s 100 percent free.” Pollack explained that the direct-mail firm will “take a percentage” of the total raised by the letter, and as such, the McMullen campaign believes they don’t have to report the mailing to the FEC.

I think you see where I’m going with this.

So the reporter called the FEC to see if the McMullen campaign had its facts straight. An FEC spokesperson said, “Anything a campaign gets of value is considered a contribution.” She said even if the firm was just going to take a cut of the receipts, “it still has to be reported.”

Of course, it hasn’t been reported. Can you say, “Violation of federal election law”?

Wait, it gets funnier.

So McMullen’s press secretary, Pollack, called the newspaper columnist back. Pollack explains that he talked to “three officials at the FEC” who assured him the mailing did not have to be reported. When asked for the officials’ names, Pollack said he couldn’t remember, but he’d find them and call back. Not surprisingly, Pollack didn’t get back to him.

First of all, he’s obviously lying. No one at the FEC would tell him the campaign doesn’t have to report what is obviously a valuable in-kind contribution. This is Election Law 101.

But let’s take Pollack’s lie at face value. He talked to “three” FEC officials? Why three? If I called the FEC for advice and an agency official told me I didn’t have to file a given report, I’d thank him or her for their time and move on. Want to play it safe? I’d call back, talk to a different FEC official, and see if I got the same advice.

If I got two people at the FEC to come to the same conclusion on the same question, why would I call back and track down a third person? And if I was being that assiduous about my concern, wouldn’t I write down at least one of their names?

Anyway, Senator Leahy, if you’re reading this, I hope you’re not worrying too much about your re-election campaign. I think you’re in good shape.