Second Common Sense PAC Mailer Targets Bennington County Senators

A second wave of political mailers from Common Sense PAC, an Independent Expenditure Political Action Committee (IEPAC), has spurred controversy in Bennington County. The mailers, which follow a similar round sent in late September concerning State Sen. Seth Bongartz (D-Bennington), focus this time on State Sen. Rob Plunkett (D-Bennington). The postcards accuse Plunkett of not delivering on issues such as crime and public safety, education, property taxes, and affordability. They also express support for Republican candidates Spike Whitmire and Josh Williams, who are contesting the same state senate seats.

Plunkett Criticizes Mailer Content and Tone

Sen. Rob Plunkett responded by labeling the advertisement a misrepresentation of his record. He voiced disappointment at what he called the normalization of 'attack ads' in Vermont's previously civil political environment. Plunkett noted, "It is so transparently incorrect, and clearly sent out by people who have never spoken to me. Even responding to it gives it more credence than it deserves." He emphasized his work in building relationships across party lines in Montpelier and expressed concern that such negative campaigning could discourage potential candidates from participating in Vermont politics.

Disclosure Complaint Filed with Vermont Attorney General

In the wake of the second mailer, former legislator Bob Stannard filed a complaint with Vermont Attorney General Charity Clark's office. Stannard alleges that Common Sense PAC violated campaign finance laws regarding donor disclosure and mass-media reporting requirements. Specifically, the complaint cites 17 V.S.A. § 2972(c), which mandates the disclosure of contributors providing over 25 percent and more than $2,000 in contributions since the start of the election cycle. Stannard claims the mailers only indicated they were 'paid for by Common Sense PAC' and did not name Durin Systems LLC, a California company that contributed $10,000—about 40 percent of the PAC's funding at that time.

Mass Media Report Filing Questioned

The complaint also questions Common Sense PAC's compliance with 17 V.S.A. § 2971, which requires mass media reports for expenditures over $650 within 45 days of a general election. According to Stannard, the PAC spent $10,470.72 on the Plunkett mailer during this period but failed to file the necessary report for that expenditure. While the PAC did file a report for the earlier September 8 mailer targeting Bongartz, no report has been submitted for the more recent mailer as of the date of the complaint.

Questions Surround Durin Systems LLC Contribution

The $10,000 donation from Durin Systems LLC has garnered attention due to its listed address at 228 Nevada Street, El Segundo, California—a location associated with another entity, Durin Mining Technologies Corp. Ted Feldmann, CEO of Durin Mining Technologies Corp, told the Manchester Journal he has no connection to the PAC or the contribution, stating, "I’m not familiar with Durin Systems LLC and have never heard of the Common Sense PAC. My business is called Durin Mining Technologies Corp." Feldmann further confirmed that his company does not make political donations.

PAC and Campaigns Respond to Allegations

Common Sense PAC Treasurer Richard Kaufman declined to comment on the specific allegations but confirmed that the mining company was not involved. Both Republican candidates named in the mailer denied any involvement with the PAC’s actions. Spike Whitmire emphasized to The Manchester Journal that the PAC operates independently and his campaign had nothing to do with the mailer. Josh Williams was not available for comment, but prior reports indicate he also had no involvement.

Attorney General's Office Reviewing Complaint

Haley Sommer, senior advisor to Attorney General Charity Clark, stated that the complaint has been received and is under review. The office will reach out to those named in the complaint and request a response within a specified timeframe. Sommer noted that information gathered during the review remains confidential under Vermont law.

Source: vtdigger.org.