Internal communications obtained by FYIVT through a public records request reveal that senior officials at the Vermont Secretary of State’s Office (VTSOS) expressed concern over apparent campaign finance irregularities involving Rutland Forward PAC—but chose not to take formal action or refer the matter to the Attorney General’s Office (AGO) for enforcement.
Instead of pursuing potential violations that may have affected the transparency of local elections, the records show that SOS staff prioritized public messaging and institutional self-protection. Officials acknowledged the possibility of coordination, misreporting, and system lapses—but characterized these as “bugs” and ultimately focused on managing public perception.
“DING DING DING DING ALARM,” wrote Elections Administrator Mark Houle in a March 3 email summarizing FYIVT’s findings. “We may need to turn this into the Attorney General. It does not smell very good.”
Despite this warning, no emails indicate that the office formally referred the matter for enforcement.
Acknowledged Filings Problems, But No Follow-Up
The internal emails document issues with filings submitted by Rutland Forward PAC, including:
- Incorrectly filed reports, later amended following media inquiry;
- A nearly $8,000 discrepancy between account balances across election cycles;
- A mass media expenditure that may have qualified as an in-kind contribution subject to contribution limits and reporting thresholds.
Staff also noted that Mayor Mike Doenges’s 2023 campaign finance filings were missing from the state’s public database until the matter was raised by FYIVT. Only after media inquiry did the office locate and restore the filings.
“Our new system didn’t have the mayor’s 2023 filings… Pradeep tracked down and added [them] to the archive,” wrote a senior elections official.
Rather than treating the absence of public records as a transparency breach, officials internally described it as a system hiccup and emphasized messaging about platform improvements.
No Internal Consideration of Legal Thresholds
While the emails refer to “coordination,” “kickbacks,” and a “mess down there,” at no point do SOS staff discuss whether Rutland Forward PAC’s activity constituted coordinated expenditures—which, under Vermont law, would be treated as contributions and subject to both limits and disclosure requirements pursuant to 17 V.S.A. § 2901(6) and (8) and § 2941.
Under Vermont statute, political committees may support candidates, but if expenditures are made in cooperation, consultation, or concert with a candidate, those expenditures are no longer considered “independent” and must be reported as contributions. The internal record shows no effort by the Secretary of State to evaluate whether Rutland Forward’s conduct crossed this legal threshold, nor whether the relevant spending complied with contribution limits or reporting requirements.
Institutional Messaging Took Priority
Multiple emails reflect an overriding concern with institutional image and public relations. In a February 20 message to Secretary of State Sarah Copeland Hanzas and her senior deputies, an official wrote:
“I spoke to the reporter… don’t think it will trigger waves in our direction… Pretty standard fare – and while it does look like it could be a mess down there – it shouldn’t be a direct impact on us.”
And later:
“We are quickly squashing any bugs that arise – including this one.”
In another message sent to the SOS leadership team after reviewing FYIVT’s article, the same official commented:
“Kind of odd writing and public formatting… but nothing that should be too big of a deal (at least relative to VTSOS).”
[Editor’s note: 🤣]
While public reporting focused on financial discrepancies and system integrity, internal discussions focused on whether the situation posed reputational risk to the agency, rather than whether campaign finance rules were followed.
“I think we’re fine and have enough cover with the regular messaging about the transition to the new system.”
AG Reviewing the Complaint
Following a formal complaint filed by FYIVT, the Vermont Attorney General’s Office has confirmed that it is reviewing the matter. Staff stated that they are verifying technical and procedural elements and may contact involved parties for further information.
The Secretary of State’s Office did not initiate the referral and, according to available records, did not raise the issue with the Attorney General prior to the complaint.
Conclusion
Despite multiple internal acknowledgments that campaign finance filings tied to Rutland Forward PAC were incomplete, inconsistent, or potentially in violation of Vermont’s legal standards, the Secretary of State’s Office declined to pursue formal action. Their internal communications reflect an agency more concerned with narrative control than ensuring electoral transparency and fair play.
Now, with the matter under review by the Attorney General’s Office, the question remains:
Will Vermont’s enforcement authorities address the issues that the Secretary of State’s office chose to manage rather than confront?
Dave Soulia | FYIVT
You can find FYIVT on YouTube | X(Twitter) | Facebook | Parler (@fyivt) | Gab | Instagram
#fyivt #vtpoli #campaignfinance #accountability
Support Us for as Little as $5 – Get In The Fight!!
Make a Big Impact with $25/month—Become a Premium Supporter!
Join the Top Tier of Supporters with $50/month—Become a SUPER Supporter!
Leave a Reply